$B   307   Efi4 


MUST  WE 
ARM? 


HILLQVIT— GARDNER  DEBATE 


Published  by 

THE  RAND  SCHOOL  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 

New  York*  1916 


Should  Socialism  Prevail? 

A  DEBATE  BETWEEN 

The  Brooklyn  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences. 

AFFIRMATIVE  NEGATIVE 

Professor  Scott  Nearing  Rev.  Dr.  John  L.  Belford 

Mr.  Morris  Hillquit  Professor  Frederick  M.  Davenport 

Price  Single  Copy,  xoc;  Special  Rates  for  Larger  Quantities. 

Published  by  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science 

140  E.  tgth  Street.  N.  Y.  C. 

New  York,  1916 


The  Best  Propaganda  Pamphlet  Ever  Issued. 

Socialism  Summed  Up 

By  Morris  Hillquit 

The  clearest  exposition  of  Socialism  for  beginners. 
Single  copy  15c.    Special  price  for  large  quantities. 

Price  Single  Copy  isc.    Special  Rates  for  Large  Quantities. 

Published  by  The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science 

140  E.  19th  Street, 

New  York  City. 


MVST  WE  ARM? 


A  Debate  on  the  Question  :  Resolved,  That  the 
Security  of  the  Nation  Requires  an 
Increase  of  the  Mihtary  Force 
of  the  United  States 


Held  in  Carnegrie  Hall  New  York, 
April  2,  1915,  under  the  auspices  of 
The  Rand  School  of  Social  Science 


For  the  Affirmative, 
AUGUSTUS  P.  GARDNER,  M.  C. 

For  the  Negative, 
MORRIS  HILLQUIT 

Chairman,  PROF.  CHARLES  P.  FAGNANI 


Stenographically  reported  by  M.   M.    Bartholomew 


Published  by 
THE  RAND  SCHOOL  OF  SOCIAL  SCIENCE 
New  York,  1916 


Copyright  14)16 

by 

Rand  School  of  Social  Scieace 

New    York   City 


THE  DEBATERS 


Augustus  P.  Gardner,  Member  of 
Congress  from  Massachusetts, 
was  born  in  Massachusetts  in 
1865.  He  is  a  graduate  of  Har- 
vard University  and  the  Harvard 
Lav^'  School.  He  was  a  member 
of  the  Massachusetts  Senate  from 
1899  to  1901,  and  in  1902  was 
elected  to  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  on  the  Republican 
ticket.  Since  1902  he  has  served 
continuously  in  this  capacity. 
He  received  the  Republican  nom- 
ination for  Governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts in  1913  and  served  as  As- 
sistant Adjutant  General  in  the  congressman 
Spanish-American  War.  ^^^^ISa^sae'^usX'''''''' 
Morris  Hillquit  was  born  in  Russia  in  1869.  He  was  grad- 
uated, from  the  University  Law  School  in  New  York  in 

1893,  and  has  since  practiced  law 
in  New  York.  He  has  been  a 
member  of  the  Socialist  Party 
since  1888  and  has  served  in  its 
most  important  committees  and 
conventions.  He  was  delegate  to 
the  International  Socialist  Con- 
gresses held  at  Amsterdam,  1904, 
Stuttgart,  1907,  and  Copenhagen, 
1910,  and  has  been  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Socialist  Party  of  the 
United  States  on  the  Interna- 
tional Socialist  Bureau  since  1904. 
He  is  now  also  a  member  of  the 
MORRIS  HILLQUIT  National    Committee   of   the   So- 

New  York  cialist  Party. 


341)300 


FOREWORD 


For  a  hundred  years  the  foreign  policy  of  the  United  States  was 
summed  up  in  Washington's  advice  against  entangling  alliances  and 
Monroe's  declaration  that  the  Western  Hemisphere  was  not  to  be 
regarded  as  a  field  for  colonization  by  the  Powers  of  the  Old  World. 
It  is  that  policy,  made  practicable  by  our  geographical  isolation  and 
the  abundance  of  onr  natural  resources,  and  perhaps  aided  at  certain 
moments  by  peculiar  conjunctures  of  European  politics,  which  enabled 
our  country  to  offer  an  asylum  to  the  oppressed  and  a  home  to  the 
disinherited;  to  develop  a  democracy  which,  if  still  far  from  perfect, 
is  yet  justly  envied  by  most  other  peoples;  and,  above  all,  to  devote 
our  energies  to  the  arts  of  peace,  even  to  go  through  a  desperate 
civil  war  without  reaping  the  usual  harvest  of  war — the  corrupting 
ideals  of  militarism  and  a  crushing  burden  of  armaments. 

Is  all  that  irrevocably  past?  Is  it  unavoidable  that  the  United 
States  henceforth  play  the  role  of  w^hat  is  technically  called  a  Great 
Power  ? 

At  the  close  of  the  century  we  entered  upon  a  new  course.  How 
far  it  was  contemplated,  how^  far  understood,  by  our  statesmen  and 
financiers,  may  be  open  to  question.  So  far  as  the  masses  were  con- 
cerned, it  was  an  unpremeditated,  an  unforeseen,  an  involuntary  step. 
We  woke  up,  one  Alay  morning,  to  find  our  Republic  the  mistress  of 
an  island  empire  six  thousand  miles  away  and  courted  or  looked  on 
askance  by  all  the  powers  which  had  regarded  the  Orient  as  their 
undivided  estate. 

Much  has  happened  since  than — all  in  logical  sequence.  For  one 
thing,  in  less  than  twenty  years  we  have  almost  quintupled  our  mili- 
tary and  naval  expenditures.  They  now  amount  to  more  than  quarter 
of  a  billion  dollars  yearly,  exclusive  of  pensions  and  the  cost  of  the 
state  militia. 

The  money  itself  is  not  the  main  consideration.  Three  hundred 
millions  of  dollars  a  year  is  well  worth  mentioning  on  its  own  account, 
but  the  figures  are  important  chiefly  as  an  index  to  the  change  in  our 
policy,  our  ideals,  perhaps  our  destiny.  The  staggering  thing  is  to 
learn,  now  our  attention  is  called  to  it,  that  after  all  we  have  only 
a  third-rate  or  fourth-rate  navy  and  perhaps  a  tenth-rate  army. 


Do  we  wish  to  advance  in  this  direction,  to  strain  every  nerve, 
to  make  every  sacrifice  that  may  be  called  for,  in  order  to  catch  up 
and  keep  up  with  the  nations  who  have  started  ahead  of  us  on  this 
path?  Or  do  we  wish  to  follow  quite  another  course  than  that  which 
is  now  being  illustrated  in  Europe?  It  is  either  to  go  on  with  a  will 
— to  double  our  navy  and  twice  double  our  army  at  once,  and  then  to 
go  on  doubling  both  every  five  or  six  years — and,  in  the  bargain,  to 
enter  into  offensive  and  defensive  alliances  and  stand  ready  to  make 
other  people's  quarrels  our  own — or  else  to  resolve  in  time  that  we 
will  avoid  war  by  avoiding  its  causes. 

This  is  the  question  the  American  people  have  to  answer — a  ques- 
tion put  to  them,  not  by  the  pacifists  nor  by  the  militarists,  but  by  the 
facts. 

In  publishing  this  report  of  the  debate  between  Congressman 
Gardner  and  Morris  Hillquit,  to  which  three  thousand  persons  listened 
with  rapt  attention,  the  Rand  School  of  Social  Science  does  its  part 
toward  helping  the  millions  to  weigh  the  arguments  and  decide. 

ALGERNON  LEE. 

New  York.  May  1,  1915. 


THE  DEBATE 


The  Educational  Director  of  the  Rand  School  called  the  meeting 
to  order  ^nd,  after  stating  the  question,  introduced  as  chairman  for 
the  evening  "a  man  in  whom  both  debaters  and  audience  can  have  the 
fullest  confidence,  a  man  who  commands  universal  respect  alike  as  a 
scholar  and  as  a  citizen,"  Professor  Charles  P.  Fagnani  of  Union 
Theological  Seminary. 

The  stenographic  report  follows. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  An  ideal  chairman 
would  be  a  person  who  was  chair-ridden  and  tongue-tied.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  be  both. 

We  have  gathered  in  such  large  numbers  this  evening  for  a  debate 
— not,  however,  for  a  debate  in  the  etymological  sense  of  the  word, 
for  to  debate  etymologically  means  to  beat  down.  Neither  of  these 
gentlemen  intends  to  beat  the  other  down.  We  are  going  to  debate 
in  the  secondary  or  usual  sense  of  the  word,  which  simply  means  for 
each  speaker  to  air  his  opinions  and  his  convictions,  leaving  it  to  the 
audience  to  make  up  their  own  minds. 

Some  one  has  said  that  we  could  profitably  dispense  with  both 
epithets  and  epaulets.  Perhaps  we  would  not  all  agree  on  the  subject 
of  epaulets,  but  I  am  convinced  that  we  are  harmonious  concerning 
epithets.  Nothing  is  ever  gained  by  calling  names.  And  this  mighty 
subject  that  is  to  be  considered  this  evening  is  one  regarding  which 
good  men  can  well  dififer,  and  so  those  who  hold  one  side  would  not 
be  justified  in  calling  the  other  traitors,  nor  any  other  epithet 
whatsoever. 

We  are  the  citizens  of  this  great  country,  and  we  do  the  thinking 
for  the  country,  and  we  affect  the  governing  of  the  country;  and  it 
behooves  us  to  see  all  sides  of  a  question.  There  are  always  two  sides 
to  everything.  Life  itself  is  an  equilibrium;  it  is  a  balance  between 
two  forces.  Take  our  own  bodies,  for  instance.  If  it  were  not  for 
pressure  within,  balanced  by  the  pressure  from  without,  the  result 
would  be  either  explosion  or  collapse.  Things  have  to  be  adjusted, 
and  have  to  be  weighed  one  against  the  other.  Life  is  not  a  simple 
thing,  it  is  a  complex  question.  These  gentlemen  who  are  to  speak 
to  you  each  believes  in  what  he  has  to  say.    I  do  not  suppose,  however, 


Must  We  Arm  ? 


that  either  of  them  would  take  the  position  of  the  man  who  says  that 
truth  lies  at  the  bottom  of  a  well,  and  I  am  the  only  man  that  has 
got  the  pump.  Th^re  are  different  ways  of  getting  at  truth,  and  no 
one  has  any  prerogative  or  monopoly  on  the  subject. 

Before  introducing  to  you  the  first  speaker,  let  me  say  that  the 
arrangement  has  been  that  Congressman  Gardner  is  to  begin,  and 
is  to  have  one  hour,  and  Mr.  Hillquit  is  to  close,  speaking  for  another 
hour.  That  will  conclude  the  debate.  I  have  been  requested  to  give 
notice  to  each  speaker  five  minutes  before  his  time  has  elapsed. 

We  have  with  us  two  distinguished  men,  probably  men  who 
throughout  the  country  would  be  picked  out  for  the  respective  parts 
that  they  are  to  play  before  us  this  evening.  Congressman  Augustus 
Peabody  Gardner,  of  the  Sixth  District  of  Massachusetts,  has  served 
many  years  in  Congress,  and  we  have  read  some  of  the  things  that 
he  has  said.  And  we  are  all,  I  am  sure,  most  interested  and  eager 
to  see  the  man  himself  and  to  hear  the  words  pouring  out  from  his 
own  heart  and  conviction. 

It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  now  present  Congressman  Gardner 
to   you.      (Applause.) 

CONGRESSMAN  GARDNER:  Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and 
Gentlemen : 

I  sometimes  go  away  from  a  meeting  like  this,  after  listening  to 
a  speaker,  feeling  doubtful  in  my  own  mind  whether  what  he  says  is 
accurate.  Now,  I  am  going  to  make  a  good  many  surprising  state- 
ments to  you  to-night,  and  for  that  reason  I  prepared  last  January 
a  pamphlet  which  I  call  my  Army  and  Navy  Manual.  It  has*  been 
distributed  to  you,  and  in  it  you  will  find  references  to  the  original 
evidence  for  almost  everything  that  I  shall  have  to  say.  Of  course 
there  are  some  things  which  I  shall  say  which  have  arisen  out  of 
incidents  which  have  taken  place  since  the  middle  of  January,  when 
T   prepared  that  pamphlet. 

I  am  here  to  persuade  you  that  the  United  States  ought  to  be 
prepared  against  war.  Now.  the  Carnegie  speakers  with  whom  I 
debate  this  question   insist  en  confusing  that  proposition,  which  is  a 


Must  We  Arm? 


plain  one,  with  being  prepared  for  war.  Let  me  point  out  to  you 
the  difference. 

Germany  was  prepared  for  war,  and  she  made  war.  Switzerland 
was  prepared  against  war,  and  she  has  avoided  war.  Belgium  was 
neither  prepared  for  war  nor  against  war,  and  war  has  overwhelmed 
her.  ''Oh,  but,"  says  some  one,  "Europe  is  drunk  with  slaughter. 
When  you  see  your  neighbor  reeling  with  drink,  is  that  any  time  to 
put  by  a  new  supply  of  liquor?"  That  is  what  David  Starr  Jordan 
said  in  a  debate  with  me  on  this  subject,  and  he  said  it  triu'mphantly. 
No,  my  friends,  it  is  not  a  time  to  put  in  a  fresh  supply  of  liquor; 
but  it  is  mighty  good  time  when  you  see  the  neighbors  reeling  with 
drink,  to  hire  a  fresh  lot  of  policemen,  and  to  see  that  they  are  armed 
with  good,  stout  night-sticks,  and  to  see  that  they  have  their  powder 
dry.  Oh,  it  isn't  drink  that  the  Allies  have  been  reeling  with,  it  is 
peace  dope.  And  when  you  see  your  neighbors  staggering  under  the 
blows  which  were  administered  before  they  awoke  from  their  pipe 
dreams,  it  is  a  pretty  poor  time  to  lay  in  a  supply  of  the  very  dope 
which  drugged  them. 

Why,  my  friends,  they  tell  you  that  it  is  the  man  who  goes  about 
with  a  revolver  in  his  pocket  that  gets  into  trouble,  and  for  that  reason 
you  should  not  be  armed.  That  is  true.  It  is  the  man  who  goes  about 
with  a  revolver  in  his  pocket  that  gets  into  trouble,  but  it  is  not 
because  he  carries  a  revolver.  He  carries  that  revolver  because  he  is 
a  quarrelsome,  troublesome  man.  That  revolver  is  the  effect,  not  the 
cause.  Why,  my  friends,  you  arm  your  policemen  here  in  New  York 
with  revolvers.  You  teach  them  to  use  them  when  necessary.  You 
don't  believe  they  are  inciting  the  people  to  riot,  do  you,  just  because 
they  have  revolvers?  And  if  you  do,  how  about  your  firemen?  You 
equip  them  with  the  best  machinery  you  can  find  to  fight  fire.  You 
teach  them  to  perfect  themselves  in  the  art  of  fighting  conflagrations. 
Do  you  find  that  induces  them  to  become  incendiaries? 

My  friends,  I  am  here  to  tell  you — ^you  can  call  me  a  Militarist  if 
you  choose,  that  is  the  least  of  the  names  I  am  called.  I  am  generally 
called  a  crook,  somebody  hired  by  the  makers  of  armor  plate. —  But 
I  tell  you   I  am  here  to  advocate  a   few  more   dogs  of  war,  and   I 


Must  We  Arm  ?  9 


promise  you  that  I  will  never  vote  to  set  them  on  the  innocent 
passers-by.  What  v^e  need  is  a  navy  big  enough  to  protect  us  and 
make  us  safe  against  any  nation  on  earth,  including  Great  Britain. 
(Applause.)     And  I  don't  much  care  what  it  costs. 

Oh,  let  us  settle  all  these  things  by  compulsory  arbitration  in  the 
future,  provided  by  treaties,  and  international  court,  perhaps  with  an 
international  army  and  navy — no  less.  That  is  the  program.  I  do 
not  know  about  this  treaty  business.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  Uncle 
Sam  has  not  always  lived  up  to  his  treaties.  We  made  a  good  many 
treaties  with  the  Indians,  not  so  very  long  ago  either,  telling  them 
that  they  should  have  certain  lands  as  long  as  water  ran  and  grass 
grew.  Those  Indians  are  not  there.  We  have  moved  them  out  to 
some  place  where  the  grass  does  not  grow  so  green  and  the  water 
doesn't  run  so  swift.  But  we  can't  help  it.  A  nation  of  ninety  millions 
of  people  cannot  be  kept  back  by  a  handful  of  savages.  I  know  that 
is  not  very  far  from  the  argument  which  Germany  is  using  today,  and 
I  am  not  sure  that  to  that  extent  her  argument  is  not  sound. 

The  Chinese,  we  didn't  keep  our  treaty  with  when  we  passed  the 
first  Mongolian  Exclusion  Act.  And  I  was  for  that  act.  If  Belgitun 
had  put  less  faith  in  that  treaty  which  is  now  known  as  a  scrap  of 
paper,  and  had  put  more  faith  in  being  prepared  against  war,  the 
invasion  of  France  would  not  have  taken  place  through  Belgium,  but 
would  have  taken  place  on  the  Verdun-Toul  line. 

Now,  no  matter  what  we  may  have  done  in  this  country  in  the 
matter  of  treaties  heretofore,  henceforward  when  Uncle  Sam  puts  his 
sign  manual  to  a  treaty,  although  the  rest  of  the  world  violate  their 
half  of  the  treaty,  yet  we  must  maintain  ours.  I  am  very  glad  that 
you  do  not  applaud  that  sentiment,  because  it  is  a  false  one.  It  is 
internationally  false.  Supposing  that  in  carrying  out  that  principle 
our  path  was  crossed  by  some  nation  with  a  smaller  conscience  and  a 
bigger  howitzer.  How  is  it  going  to  be  then?  Can  we  take  care  of 
the  situation  with  gigantic  rolls  of  Sunday  School  signatures,  such 
as  have  been  sent  to  us  in  Washington,  with  which  to  meet  the  diffi- 
culty? Or  can  we  handle  it  with  a  few  well  directed  shots  from 
Chautauqua  platforms?     It  may  be  possible  that  we  shall  be  able  to 


10  Must  We  Arm  ? 


handle  the  situation  in  that  way,  and  then  again  it  may  not  be  possible. 

I  am  going  to  talk  to  you  a  little  about  some  of  these  questions 
which  we  should  be  compelled  to  arbitrate  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, and  then  I  am  going  to  ask  this  audience  if  you  would  be  willing 
to  arbitrate  them.  I  know  my  constituents  would  never  return  me 
to  Congress  if  I  consented  to  any  arrangement  under  which  these 
questions  I  am  going  to  speak  to  you  about  would  be  arbitrated. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  You  all  know  what  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  is — at  least  you  think  you  do.  But  if  you  do  know 
what  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is,  you  are  the  only  audience  from  Cape 
Mendocino  to  Eastport  that  does.  It  is  easy  enough  to  know  what 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  was.  All  you  have  to  do  is  to  turn  back  to 
President  Monroe's  message  and  read  that,  and  then  send  for  an 
interpreter  to  help  you  understand  it.  But  it  has  grown  to  mean 
something  very  different  in  the  minds  of  that  composite  entity  which 
we  call  the  American  people.  I  am  going  to  try  to  tell  you,  as  nearly 
as  possible,  what  the  Monroe  Doctrine  means,  so  nearly  as  I  can  judge, 
in  the  minds  of  our  fellow  countrymen.  We  say  to  foreign  nations: 
**It  is  all  very  well  for  you  to  retain  the  colonies  and  the  spheres  of 
influence  and  the  islands  which  you  already  have  in  North  America 
and  in  Central  America  and  in  the  West  Indies,  and  in  South  America, 
but  don't  you  get  any  more  of  theim."  That  is  the  Monroe  Doctrine; 
and  it  is  the  only  safe  doctrine  for  us  to  have.  We  can't  have  Europe 
at  close  quarters,  where  they  can  establish  military  bases. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  it  works  out.  Take,  for  instance,  the  case 
of  Germany.  Germany  is  teeming  with  population.  In  fifty  years 
Germany  will  be  bursting  with  population — as  much  as  anything,  that 
is  the  trouble  which  has  caused  this  war.  Now,  Germany  has  been 
overflowing  into  Brazil.  Vast  numbers  of  her  people  have  gone  down 
to  Brazil,  and  very  well  they  have  done  down  in  Brazil,  for  Brazil  is 
a  wonderful  country,  but  it  has  a  very  bad  government.  The  German 
settlers  complain  that  the  Brazilian  government  robs  them;  just  as 
settlers  in  Mexico  have  always  complained  that  the  Mexican  govern- 
ment robs  them.  The  government  of  Brazil  is  about  one-fifth  Portr 
guese  and  the  other  four-fifths  a  mixture  of  Negro  and  Indian.  No 
wonder  the  German  settlers  object  to  that  form  of  government.     But 


Must  We  Arm  ?  11 


we  say  to  them :  "Don't  you  try  any  Jameson  Raid  business  down 
there  in  South  America,  the  same  as  the  British  did  in  South  Africa. 
Don't  you  start  anything  going,  and  then  call  on  the  Fatherland  to 
help  you  out,  because  the  moment  you  do  you  are  up  against  the 
Monroe  Doctrine,  and  the  Fatherland  is  in  a  fight  with  the  United 
States." 

Now,  that  I  believe  to  be  a  first-class  doctrine.  I  will  tell  you 
another  first-class  doctrine.  About  thirty  years  ago,  or  a  little  over, 
we  found  that  yellow  men  were  coming  into  this  country  from  China 
in  great  numbers,  spreading  up  and  down  the  Pacific  Coast  and  pre- 
paring to  come  eastward.  We  found  that  there  was  an  ineradicable 
repugnance  between  white  people  and  Chinamen.  Now,  if  any  body 
of  you  believes  in  the  brotherhood  of  man — honestly  believes  in  it — 
and  is  frank  with  him  or  herself,  ask  yourself  the  question  whether 
you  would  have  your  daughter  marry  a  Chinaman.  If  you  want  to 
known  what  your  real  sentiments  are,  and  if  you  come  from  the 
South,  ask  if  you  would  have  your  daughter  marry  a  Negro.  We 
found  not  only  that  there  was  an  ineradicable  difference  between  the 
yellow  man  and  the  white  man,  but  we  found  that  those  yellow  China- 
men cut  way  under  the  wages  of  the  American  citizens  on  the  Pacific 
coast,  and  an  agitation  was  started  by  every  laboring  man  on  that . 
coast,  which  spread  from  West  to  East,  until  Congress  was  forced  to 
act,  until  we  excluded  those  Chinese  from  this  country  and  forbade 
them,  with  their  low  standard  of  living,  to  cut  down,  undercut,  the 
wages  of  our  own  people. 

Then,  as  time  went  on,  the  Japanese  began  to  come  in,  and  exactly 
what  was  true  of  the  Chinese  was  also  true  of  the  Japanese.  And 
then  we  made  an  arrangement,  very  much  against  the  will  of  the 
Japanese  government,  for  they  are  a  proud  people,  under  which  the 
Japanese  are  excluded  from  coming  into  this  country  and  cutting 
down  the  wages  of  our  own  people. 

Now  ask  any  labor  leader  from  California  to  Maine  whether  his 
people  would  consent  to  leave  that  question  to  arbitration  by  an  inter- 
national court.  And  then  ask  him  if  that  question  of  the  exclusion 
of  Japanese  was  left  to  an  international  court  to  be  decided,  how  he 


12  Must  We  Arm? 


i 


thinks  that  international  court  would  decide  it.  Remember,  Japan  has 
proved  itself  a  first-class  nation.  Now,  try  that  the  next  time  you  get 
into  conversation  with  a  labor  leader,  ask  him  two  things.  First, 
whether  we  Congressmen  would  dare  go  against  organized  labor  in 
that  matter;  and  then,  second,  ask  him  how  organized  labor  would 
stand  on  that  question  of  arbitrating  the  exclusion  of  the  Asiatics 
from  this  country.  Why,  my  friends,  we  have  looked  the  proudest 
nation  of  the  East  square  in  the  eye.  We  have  looked  the  greatest 
fighting  race  that  Asia  ever  produced,  those  Japanese,  square  in  the 
eye,  and  we  have  said,  "We  will  have  none  of  you  here." 

Now,  that  is  another  first-class  doctrine.  But  you  will  never 
maintain  it  with  a  third-class  fleet. 

The  world  says  we  are  wrong.  I  am  willing  to  fight  for  those 
doctrines — which  is  easy  enough  to  say  for  a  man  who  is  fifty  years 
old — and  I  am  willing  to  pay  an  extra  income  tax  to  support  that 
doctrine,  which  is  a  good  deal  harder.  But  the  world  says  we  are 
wrong.  The  world  says  those  are  dog-in-the-manger  doctrines. 
Well,  my  friends,  perhaps  they  are.  But  if  we  are  to  be  dogs  in  the 
manger,  for  Heaven's  sake  let's  not  be  toothless  dogs  in  the  manger. 

Talk  about  the  United  States  being  a  peace-loving  people.  My 
friends,  history  hasn't  recorded  a  more  peppery  nation  than  we  have 
been.  We  have  had  a  fight  every  twenty-five  years  of  our  existence, 
and  at  the  present  actual  moment  we  have  got  a  chip  on  each  shoulder, 
and  both  arms  in  a  sling.  (Laughter  and  applause.)  Natural  history 
tells  us  of  no  more  unhappy  animal  than  the  cat  when  it  finds  itself 
in  a  certain  place  without  claws. 

But  after  this  war  is  over  we  are  told  there  is  to  be  a  general 
disarmament.  Well,  put  yourself  in  my  place.  I  have  got  to  do 
more  than  talk  or  spill  printers'  ink  on  this  proposition.  I  have  to 
vote.  I  have  to  take  the  responsibility  for  my  vote.  If  you  were  in 
my  place  would  you  risk  the  future  of  this  country  on  a  proposition 
that  we  may  disarm.  Why,  my  friends,  the  prophecies  of  disarma- 
ment made  today  are  precisely  the  same  that  Immanuel  Kant  was 
making  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  program  today 
is  mighty  little  different  from  that  proposed  by  Kant.  And  Lieber 
followed   him,   and   Cobden   and    Bright,   and   Jefferson   in   our   own 


J 


Must  We  Arm  ?  13 


country.  It  may  be  that  disarmament  is  coming  some  day,  when  we 
have  got  so  far  over  our  prejudice  against  yellow  people  that  we 
intermarry  our  daughters  with  their  sons.  But  meanwhile  I  have  to 
vote.  And  am  I  to  assume  that  disarmament  is  coming?  Why,  think 
a  moment. 

Do  you  realize  that  Great  Britain  is  the  only  nation  upon  earth 
of  any  size  that  cannot  feed  itself?  Do  you  realize  that  Great  Britain 
has  to  depend  on  an  ocean  open  to  commerce  to  stave  off  starvation? 
Do  you  know  that  the  British  people  for  a  hundred  years  nearly 
have  maintained  that  they  didn't  dare  have  their  food  supply  at  the 
mercy  of  a  combination  of  any  two  nations?  Do  you  know  that  that 
is  why  they  established  what  is  called  their  "two-power  standard  of 
navy,"  a  navy  to  be  equal  to  that  of  any  other  two  nations  on  earth? 
How  would  their  people,  if  tliey  are  winners,  allow  them  to  dare  to 
risk  starvation  on  the  friendliness — the  supposed  friendliness — of  peo- 
ple who  have  sworn  to  hate  them  from  now  to  eternity?  Well,  I  can 
see  how  they  might  do  it.  I  can  conceive  of  the  possibility  of  Great 
Britain  consenting  to  disarm  her  navy  if  the  navies  of  all  the  rest  of 
the  world  were  disarmed.  But  supposing  she  did  it,  supposing  she 
disarms  her  navy  and  all  the  rest  of  the  world  disarms  their  navies. 
Why,  my  friends,  when  it  is  all  done,  she  is  stronger  at  sea  than  ever. 
Preponderant  as  Great  Britain's  navy  is,  over  the  navies  of  the  rest 
of  the  world,  her  merchant  marine  has  a  far  greater  preponderance, 
and  all  she  has  got  to  do  in  time  of  war  is  to  arm  that  merchant 
marine  while  her  opponents  are  arming  their  merchant  marine,  and 
there  you  have  got  the  old  preponderance  once  more.  Oh,  it  will  be 
cheaper,  if  that  is  all  we  are  thinking  about — and  that  seems  such 
a  foolish  thing  for  us  to  think  about.  We  are  the  only  nation  upon 
earth  that  can  afford  a  gigantic  navy  and  never  know  whether  we 
have  one  or  not.  There  isn't  a  hundred  people  in  this  audience  who 
could  tell  me  now  within  a  hundred  millions  how  much  we  spend  for 
our  navy  each  year. 

Now,  what  is  the  matter?  Why  can't  we  discuss  this  thing  like 
sensible  people?  Why  can't  we  discuss  it  from  its  obvious  point  of 
view?  My  friends,  Andrew  Carnegie  has  given  $10,000,000  for  the 
purpose    of   hiring    voices    and    spilling   printers'    ink    to    distort   the 


14  Must  We  Arm  ? 


presentation  of  this  problem  to  the  people;  $487,000  was  their  income 
last  year — and  $487,000  will  pay  for  the  dreaming  of  many  a  dream. 
There  were  some  of  them  shattered  last  summer.  There  was  a  peace 
conference  that  was  going  on  at  Lac  de  Constance  at  the  end  of  last 
July.  And  the  air  reverberated  with  shouts  that  the  bankers  of 
Europe  would  not  allow  any  war,  and  that  the  working  men  of  Europe 
wouldn't  fight  each  other  merely  because  they  wore  different  uniforms; 
and  the  Socialists  of  Europe  swore  a  mighty  oath  that  they 
would  .not  go  to  war;  and  the  members  of  the  Socialist 
Parliaments  of  Europe,  headed  by  the  one  hundred  and 
eleven  Socialists  in  the  German  Reichstag,  swore  that  as  one  man 
they  would  vote  down  any  budget  or  any  loan  for  the  prosecution  of 
a  war.  And  just  about  that  time  the  peace  conference  at  Lac  de 
Constance  was  caught  in  the  maelstrom  of  the  German  mobilization, 
and  they  managed  to  get  away  under  the  wing  of  the  Archduchess 
somebody  or  other — I  have  forgotten  who — and  they  left  their  bag- 
gage behind,  and  most  of  it  is  there  yet. 

As  for  those  bankers  of  Europe  who  were  not  going  to  permit 
any  war,  the  same  thing  has  happened  as  happens  all  through  history, 
when  the  financial  end  comes  up  against  the  fighting  end.  The  bank- 
ers of  Europe  were  not  asked.  Now,  David  Starr  Jordan  said  the 
other  night  when  he  debated  this  question  before  the  Economic  Club 
here  in  New  York,  that  they  didn't  have  time.  Oh,  they  had  time 
enough,  but  they  were  not  asked  until  the  war  had  started,  and  then 
the  only  question  which  was  asked  those  bankers  of  Europe  was 
whether  they  would  contribute  200,000,000  pounds  that  week  or  the 
next  week.     That  is  the  only  question  that  was  asked  them. 

And  as  for  the  working  men  of  Europe,  they  flew  at  each  other's 
throats  as  if  they  enjoyed  it.  I  was  over  there  at  the  time,  and 
Marseillaising  and  God-Save-the-Kinging  and  Wacht-am-Rheining 
went  on  throughout  the  capitals  of  Europe  to  an  unbelievable  extent. 

And  by  the  way,  my  friends,  when  you  get  talking  about  wars 
for  commercial  reasons,  and  to  save  dynasties,  just  ask  yourself  which 
ii  trying  to  get  Italy  into  the  war,  the  government  or  the  people.  And 
if  you  are  honest  with  yourself,  you  will  say  the  people  of  Italy  are 
.;rying  to  get   the  nation  into  war;   and   the  government  is  trying  to 


Must  We  Arm  ?  16 


keep  it  out.  And  the  people  of  Greece  and  the  people  of  Rumania 
are  trying  to  get  their  countries  into  war,  and  their  governments  are 
trying  to  keep  them  out.  Last  Spring — I  just  give  you  this  as  an 
illustration  that  our  nature  is  not  very  different  from  savages — last 
Spring  at  the  time  of  the  outbreak  of  the  second  Mexican  war,  I  was 
standing  down  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue,  opposite  the  office  of  the 
"Evening  Star."  We  had  picked  a  quarrel  of  some  sort  with  a  man 
by  the  name  of  Huerta,  and  finally  the  quarrel  had  reduced  itself  to 
this;  We  told  him  he  had  got  to  fire  twenty-one  guns  straight  as  a 
salute,  and  he  offered  to  fire  them  as  a  sandwich,  one  to  one  of  each 
of  ours.  Now,  that  is  what  the  dispute  came  down  to  finally.  And 
he  had  until  seven  o'clock  of  a  certain  evening  to  give  his  definite 
answer,  and  if  not,  war  was  going  to  break  out.  The  time  came. 
The  notice  was  posted  on  the  bulletin  of  the  "Evening  Star"  that 
Huerta  refused  to  salute,  and  the  crowd  cheered — and  I  was  ashamed 
of  them,  contemptible  militarist  as  I  am,  because  Mexico  was  a  little 
nation,  and  little  nation  or  big  nation,  that  crowd  ought  to  have  turned 
away  in  sorrow  when  they  found  that  war  looked  inevitable. 

Now,  how  about  these  Socialists  of  Europe  who  "as  one  man" 
were  going  to  vote  down  the  budget  and  the  loan,  headed  by  the  , one 
hundred  and  eleven  Socialists  in  the  German  Reichstag?  They  kept 
their  promise — that  is  exactly  what  they  did — as  one  man  they  voted 
it  down.     That  one  man  was  Karl  Liebknecht.     (Hearty  applause,) 

Oh,  it  is  true  that  there  were  fifteen  more  of  them  in  the  Socialist 
caucus  who  voted  against  it,  but  when  it  came  to  the  floor  of  Xht 
Reichstag,  they  did  not  take  that  point  of  view.  And  on  this  second 
round  that  they  had  a  little  while  ago,  if  the  papers  are  correct,  there 
were  thirty  of  them  who  ducked  out  of  the  Reichstag  before  the  vote 
took  place.  Now,  if  one  of  these  capitalistic  congressmen  were  to 
duck  a  vote  on  ^n  important  thing  like  that,  the  Lord  knows  what 
the  uplift  papers  from  one  end  of  this  country  to  the  oth^r  would 
say  about  us.     (Laughter.) 

There  has  not  been  one  of  our  wars  that  has  been  brought  on  by 
commercial  reasons.  Almost  every  war  of  modern  years  of  any  sort 
has  been  a  question  of  liberty,  like  our  original  Revolutionary  War — 
and  by  the  way,  would  we  have  submitted  that  to  arbrtratioa?     And 


16  Must  We  Arm  ? 


if  so,  how  would  we  have  come  out?  And  then  when  this  country 
was  expanding,  we  brought  on  the  Mexican  war  by  annexing  Texas? 
No,  by  assisting  Texas  to  get  away  from  Mexico,  and  then  annexing 
Texas.  That  is  because  we  had  to  expand.  I  wonder  how  we  would 
have  come  out  in  an  international  court  on  that  proposition?  Would 
the  North  have  consented  to  arbitrate  the  question  of  human  slavery? 
And  would  any  of  us  who  were  of  fighting  age  have  consented  to  arbi- 
trate the  question  of  whether  the  battleship  Maine  was  blown  up  from 
the  inside  or  from  the  outside? 

Oh,  my  friends,  when  I  think  of  the  things  that  would  be  sub- 
mitted at  once  to  an  international  court  I  shudder.  The  first  question 
that  would  come  before  them  is  this:  If  you  people  in  the  United 
States  won't  protect  foreigners'  lives  and  property  in  Mexico,  why 
shouldn't  the  international  army  and  navy  go  in  and  do  it?  That 
would  very  likely  be  the  first  question.  And  supposing  the  inter- 
national court  says  to  the  international  army  and  navy,  "Go  in;  never 
mind  what  the  Americans  think  about  it" — What  is  our  quota  in  the 
international  army  and  navy  going  to  do?  Are  we  going  to  mutiny, 
or  are  we  going  to  fight  against  ourselves?  Ask  yourselves  that 
question.  Oh,  my  friends,  if  you  gave  me  the  income  of  $487,000  a 
year,  I  would  dream  dreams  to  beat  any  Carneigie  dreamer 
that  ever  came  down  the  pike;  because  that  is  my  pro- 
fession to  do  it.  I  can  dream  of  the  days  when  there  are  going  to 
be  no  more  burglars.  I  can  dream  just  as  well  as  you  Socialists  can 
of  the  days  when  property  will  not  be  an  individual  holding.  Why, 
I  represent  Haverhill,  where  they  used  to  elect  a  Socialist  mayor  year 
after  year,  fifteen  years  ago,  and  I  am  familiar  with  the  doctrine 
preached  then.  We  are  no  nearer  it  than  we  were  then.  It  may  be 
coming.  I  won't  stake  the  future  of  this  country  meanwhile  until  it 
comes.  I  can  dream,  as  I  said,  when  there  will  be  no  more  burglars. 
Meanwhile  I  live  half  a  mile  from  the  nearest  neighbor  in  the  coun- 
try, and  I  propose  to  continue  to  keep  a  watch  dog.  And  as  for  my 
wife,  during  my  absence  she  will  continue  to  keep  a  loaded  revolver 
on  the  table  next  to  her  bed.  And  up  to  date  I  have  not  noticed  that 
her  preparedness  for  war  has  induced  her  either  to  use  it  on  the 
chickens  or  on  me.     (Laughter  and  applause.) 


Must  We  Arm?  17 


Now,  I  am  coming  down  to  a  few  particulars.  Here  is  a  state- 
ment, the  verification  of  which  you  will  not  find  in  that  manual,  but 
you  will  find  it  in  the  Navy  Year  Book  of  1914,  published  by  the 
United  States  Government.  The  reason  it  isn't  in  the  Manual  is  it 
arose  out  of  a  subsequent  incident. 

There  was  a  battle  in  the  North  Sea  a  few  Sundays  ago,  and  in 
it  were  engaged  nine  capital  ships,  so-called.  Capital  ships  means  the 
great,  big  fighting  ships,  the  dreadnaughts,  the  dreadnaught  cruisers, 
and  a  few  of  the  very  biggest  and  newest  armored  cruisers — ^those 
vessels  which  take  the  high  seas  and  keep  the  enemy's  ships  from 
transporting  thir  troops  and  their  commerce,  and  keep  the  seas  open 
for  their  own  commerce.  Those  are  the  ships  that  we  would  have 
to  depend  on  in  case  of  war,  to  prevent  the  fleet  of  the  enemy  trans- 
ports conveying  hostile  soldiers-  to  our  shores.  They  are  the  great 
fighting  ships,  and  there  were  nine  of  them  in  that  battle,  five  on  the 
British  side,  four  on  the  German  side.  And  of  those  ships,  one,  the 
Bluecher,  on  the  German  side,  was  sent  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 
Why?  Because  it  was  over  five  miles  an  hour  slower  than  any  other 
of  those  nine  ships.  So  the  British  fire  was  all  concentrated  on  her, 
and  she  had  to  spread  out  her  fire  in  return ;  and  so  she  went  to  the 
bottom  of  the  sea.  Now  the  Bluecher,  which  was  five  miles  an  hour 
and  more — five  knots  to  be  accurate — slower  than  any  other  vessel  in 
that  fleet,  was  faster  than  the  fastest  capital  ship  in  Uncle  Sam's 
whole  navy,  either  built  or  building  today. 

Now,  my  friends,  we  have  what  is  known  as  the  General  Board 
of  the  Navy.  It  is  composed  of  the  very  best  and  wisest  admirals 
and  naval  officers.  For  a  dozen  years  it  has  existed,  and  every  year 
it  makes  its  recommendations  and  we  proceed  to  put  its  recom*menda- 
tions  into  the  waste-paper  basket.  In  1903  it  told  us  just  what  we 
needed  in  the  way  of  ships  of  all  sorts  in  order  to  make  us  safe. 
Safe  against  what?  Safe  against  any  nation  except  Great  Britain. 
Why  except  Great  Britain?  I  give  it  up.  Now,  my  sympathies  are 
entirely  with  the  Allies,  but  I  don't  propose  to  be  beholden  to  any 
nation  for  its  friendliness.  (Applause.)  I  want  to  stand  on  even 
terms  with  Great  Britain  in  friendship,  and  look  at  it  as  one  strong 
man  looks  at  another  strong  man,  whose  right  arm  he  respects;  and 


18  Must  We  Arm  ? 


I  don't  want  to  look  at  Great  Britain  like  that  and  say,  "My  friend, 
I  know  at  any  moment  you  have  a  mind  to  you  can  knock  my  block 
off,  but  for  Heaven's  sake,  stay  friendly."  That  is  the  position  we 
are  in  toward  Great  Britain  at  this  exact  moment. 

But  let  us  see  whether  we  did  what  they  told  us  to.  They  said 
we  should  have  forty-eight  battleships  in  the  navy,  first-class  ones,  less 
than  twenty  years  old ;  four  destroyers  for  each  battleship ;  one  scout 
cruiser,  and  other  trimmings  to  suit.  Now,  let  us  see  what  they  say 
in  their  report  of  1914.  This  is  November  17th,  1914,  the  report  of 
the  General  Board.  This  shows  that  we  are  now  deficient  ten  battle- 
ships building  and  authorized,  from  that  contemplated  in  the  1903 
program.  Ten  is  an  awful  lot  to  be  short  from  forty-eight.  But  ten 
isn't  all.  Some  of  those  are  not  in  full  commission,  because  we  haven't 
the  crews.  Moreover,  we  are  a  great  deal  shorter  of  destroyers  and 
other  vessels  than  we  are  of  battleships.  Listen  to  this  from  the 
General  Board:  "In  the  absence  of  any  definite  naval  policy  on  our 
part,  except  in  the  General  Board" — this  is  a  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy — "and  the  failure  of  the  people,  the  Congress,  and  the 
executive  government  to  recognize  the  necessity  for  such  a  policy, 
has  already  placed  us  in  a  position  of  inferiority,  which  may  lead  to 
war,  and  this  inferiority  is  progressive,  and  will  continue  to  increase 
until  the  necessity  for  a  definite  policy  is  recognized  and  that  policy 
piit  into  operation." 

Now,  let  us  see  where  we  are  at.  I  hold  in  my  hand  the  last 
table  of  the  warship  tonnage  of  the  principal  naval  powers.  It  is  pre- 
pared by  the  office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  United  States  Navy  Depart- 
ment, and  it  is  dated  July  1st,  1914;  and  that  is  the  most  recent.  Since 
that  time  Germany  has  lost  a  tonnage  of  140,000,  about.  But  that  is 
a  mere  drop  in  the  bucket,  and  the  Lord  knows  how  much  she  has 
been  building.  But  let  us  look  at  the  situation  on  the  first  of  July, 
because  that  is  the  real  test.  Here  it  is.  Warship  tonnage  of  the 
principal  naval  powers,  tonnage  completed: 

Great  Britain,  2,157,850.  That  is  a  little  over  2,000,000.  Ger- 
many, 951,000.  That  is  50,000  short  of  1,000,000.  United  States,^ 
765,000, 


Must  We  Arm  ?  Id 


That  is  tonnage  completed.  Let  us  look  at  the  tonnage  completed 
plus  tonnage  building,  in  the  second  column,  July  1st : 

Great  Britain,  2,711,000.  That  is  a  big  jump.  Germany,  1,306,000. 
France,  third,  899,000.     United  States,  894,000. 

Oh,  but  somebody  says  the  days  of  warships  have  gone  by.  The 
days  of  the  submarines  have  come.  They  haven't  yet.  The  ocean  is 
still  open  to  British  troops  and  British  commerce.  If  the  position 
were  reversed  there  would  be  a  German  government  in  Ottawa, 
Canada,  today,  and  you  could  not  avoid  it.  But  suppose,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  the  day  of  the  submarines  has  come.  Where  are 
our  submarines?  Nominally  we  have  fifty-nine  of  them.  Let  us 
see  what  condition  they  are  in.  Some  of  them  are  admittedly  in  the 
scrap  heap.  Others  are  said  to  be  in  good  condition.  But  they  had  a 
trial  to  find  out  last  November.  We  have  three  fleets,  of  which  the 
principal  is  the  Atlantic  fleet.  And  in  that  fleet  are  seventeen  .sub- 
marines, five  of  them  on  the  Panama  Canal. 

Now,  here  is  the  evidence  on  December  15th,  1914,  before  the 
Committee  on  Naval  Affairs.  Commander  Yates  Sterling  in  charge 
of  the  submarine  flotilla  is  being  interrogated.  Representative  Roberts, 
member  of  Congress,  asks: 

"  *I  am  asking  you  that  question  because  some  newspapers,  state 
that  there  is  only  one  submarine  out  of  the  seventeen  that:  ^yill:dive.' 

"Commander  Sterling:  'I  think  I  can  explain  w:here  they  ^ot  that 
impression.  The  Commander  in  Chief  ordered  a  mobilization  of  the 
Atlantic  flotilla  at  Hampton  Roads  on  the  first  of  November  of,  all 
available  vessels.  He  left  it  to  me  to  say  what  vessels  I  would  bring 
down  there.  He  did  not  consider  the  five  at  Colon.  That  reduced  the 
submarine  flotilla  to  twelve.  So  when  we  got  down  there  the  Ad- 
miral wanted  to  know  what  we  could  do.  I  told  him  we  had  then 
only  one  submarine  that  I  thought  could  efficiently  take  part  in  the 
maneuvers  at  sea  off  the  coast." 

But,  says  somebody,  the  day  of  the  submarines  has  passed,  and 
;j.i^^now  we  are  going  to  have  air  craft  rule  the  world.  Where  are  our 
t-i^ir  craft?  Now,  I  am  going  to  read  you  from  the  evidence  of  Cap- 
•j:  tain  Mark  Bristol,  in  charge  of  the  Air  Service  of  the  Navy.  He  is 
%?.< testifying  for  the  Army  Air  Service  as  well.     Page  91  of  his  evidence. 


20  Must  We  Arm? 


''France  has  22  dirigibles  and  1,400  aeroplanes."  (Dirigibles,  as 
you  know,  are  these  balloons  of  various  shapes,  rigid  and  semi-rigid, 
etc.)  "Russia,  18  dirigibles  and  800  aeroplanes;  Germany,  40  dirig- 
ibles and  1,000  aeroplanes;"  etc.  "United  States,  23  aeroplanes." 
(Laughter  and  applause.)  Of  which  eleven  are  in  the  army  and 
twelve  in  the  navy,  not  more  than  any  two  of  the  same  type,  and 
not  one  of  them  armored.  And  as  far  as  Zeppelins  and  dirigibles  are 
concerned,  how  many  do  you  suppose  we  have?  Not  one  single,  soli- 
tary one.  (Applause.)  Why,  my  friends?  Because  Zeppelins  cost 
money.  A  Zeppelin  costs  a  million  dollars.  Now,  what  sort  of  a 
proposition  is  that  to  bring  before  us  Congressmen?  A  million  dol- 
lars  for  a  hot-air  machine.     (Laughter.) 

I  am  not  going  to  say  a  great  deal  more.  If  we  have  a  big  enough 
navy  we  are  safe  as  a  church,  and  nothing  else  can  make  us  safe. 
We  need  20,000  men  more  in  the  navy  today,  so  that  we  could  get 
our  vessels  out  of  cold  storage  where  they  are  now.  We  have  ten 
battleships  where  we  can't  get  at  them  because  we  haven't  sufficient 
crews.  If  we  could  have  more  men  in  the  navy  it  would  be  a  great 
thing.  Twenty  thousand  men  in  the  navy  would  be  worth  100,000  in 
the  army.  I  am  not  going  to  talk  to  you  much  about  your  coast  de- 
fences. You  have  twelve-inch  guns  here  in  New  York,  most  of  them 
with  a  range  of  13,000  yards,  four  miles  less  than  th^  guns  on  the 
Queen  Elizabeth  and  Warspite,  and  twelve  more  super-dreadnaughts 
building  in  Great  Britain  and  three  in  Germany.  But  we  have  appro- 
priated money,  my  friends,  to  make  your  twelve-inch  guns  as  good  as 
those  fifteen-inch  guns.  And  how  do  you  suppose  we  are  going  to  do 
it?  By  cocking  them  up  in  the  air  five  degrees  more,  and  reducing  the 
weight  of  the  projectile  so  that  it  will  be  700  pounds,  against  the 
1950-pound  projectile  of  those  ships. 

The  President  says  that  a  trained  citizenry  would  leap  to  arms 
in  case  of  war.  (Applause.)  Now,  I  don't  know  where  the  arms 
are  for  them  to  leap  to.  They  are  certainly  not  in  the  United  States. 
(Applause.)  But  I  am  a  trained  citizenry.  I  have  been  a  militiaman, 
and  I  was  one  of  those  Spanish  War  heroes.  We  have  got  just 
24,602  men  available  for  the  Federal  army,  according  to  the  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  War.     That  is  about  the  size  of  your  city's  police 


Must  We  Arm  ?  21 


force.  And  in  addition  to  that  they  have  120,000  of  us  heroes,  if 
every  mother's  son  of  us  turns  up,  which  is  extremely  unlikely. 

Let  us  see  how  we  did  last  year.  Twenty-three  thousand  of  us 
didn't  go  to  inspection  during  the  year;  31,000  of  us  didn't  go  to 
camp;  and  44,000  of  us  men  behind  the  guns  were  so  far  behind  the 
guns  we  didn't  go  to  the  rifle  range  in  the  whole  course  of  the  year. 

Now,  when  you  talk  all  this  nonsense  about  trained  citizenry 
leaping  to  arms,  I  can't  forget  that  in  the  Spanish  War  sixteen  states 
of  this  Union  failed  to  furnish  their  quota;  nor  that  in  the  Civil  War, 
after  the  first  excitement  was  over,  bounties  had  to  be  offered  in 
cities  and  towns  to  fill  the  ranks;  and  that  later  on  in  the  war  both 
the  North  and  the  South  were  forced  to  the  hateful  necessity  of 
draft,  to  force  men  to  fight  against  their  will;  nor  that  there  were 
riots  right  here  in  the  City  of  New  York  against  those  drafts,  and 
that  Uncle  Sam  had  to  give  $300  to  veteran  volunteers  to  get  them 
to  re-enlist.  When  I  take  up  Woodrow  Wilson's  book  I  find  it  was 
the  same  thing  in  the  war  of  1812.  The  fact  is,  my  friends,  people 
don't  like  to  be  killed.     (Hearty  applause.) 

And  now  we  are  told  that  the  nations  are  going  to  be  exhausted 
after  this  war,  and  won't  be  able  to  fight  us.  Why,  our  memories  are 
pretty  short.  That  is  what  Austria  said  in  July.  They  said  Servia 
has  just  been  through  a  double  war,  she  won't -be  able  to  fight;  but  it 
took  Austria  three  months  to  go  down  to  Belgrade,  and  it  took  her 
three  days  to  get  out  again.  We  were  told  after  the  Russian  Japan- 
ese War  that  both  nations  were  completely  exhausted.  Look  at  them 
now.  And  during  our  Civil  War  they  said  the  North  and  the  South 
are  going  to  exhaust  each  other.  France  says,  "This  is  our  chance. 
We  will  get  rid  of  your  old  Monroe  Doctrine."  So  they  put  the 
Emperor  Maximilian  on  the  throne  down  there  in  Mexico,  and  put 
an  army  there  to  keep  him  there.  And  just  as  soon  as  we  had  a 
little  let  up,  we  sent  General  Sheridan  with  an  army  down  to  the 
Rio  Grande,  and  he  lined  right  up  there,  and  every  man  Jack  of  them 
had  the  Monroe  Doctrine  in  his  hand,  and  the  French  army  went 
out  without  firing  a  shot,  except  the  shots  that  were  fired  at  the 
poor  Emperor  Maximilian  when  they  stood  him  up  against  a  wall 
and  shot  him  down. 


22  Must  We  Arm? 


Oh,  my  friends,  don't  trust  to  somebody  else's  weakness.  Trust 
to  your  own  strength.  (Applause.)  I  lose  my  patience.  I  don't  want 
to  rock  the  boat.  But  I  don't  want  to  see  every  foreign  nation  that 
can  pick  up  a  rock,  rocking  us  with  it,  I  pick  up  the  newspaper  one 
day  and  I  find  that  Turkey  has  fired  a  friendly  solid  shot  across  the 
bows  of  the  Tennessee;  and  then  I  find  that  a  friendly  mob  has  at- 
tacked the  crews  of  the  United  States  ship  North  Carolina  in  Smyrna. 
And  then  I  find  that  some  nation  in  a  friendly  way  has  sent  the 
William  P.  Frye  down  to  Davey  Jones'  locker,  and  another  friendly 
nation  has  shut  off  our  trading  with  neutrals.  And  then  I  find  that 
Japan  says  that  the  hinges  have  got  to  come  off  the  open  door  in 
China;  and  I  find  that  the  State  Department  is  taking  it  under  "care- 
ful consideration;"  that  they  have  made  very  "strong  recommenda- 
tions;" that  they  have  made  "representations  of  the  firmest  sort." 
And  I  confess  I  was  beginning  to  get  a  little  discouraged  until  I  picked 
up  the  paper  the  other  day,  and  then  I  found  at  last  that  Uncle  Sam 
had  recovered  himself,  recovered  his  old  manhood,  and  stood  up  like 
Uncle  Sam  of  old,  and  had  taken  a  strong  stand  against  the  Piute 
Indians.     (Laughter  and  applause.) 

And  now  we  are  told  that  we  must  stifle  the  martial  spirit,  which 
America  inherited  from  her  rugged^^  pioneers.  Folly!  Worse  than 
folly — madness.  The  madness  of  organized  anaemia.  The  nation 
which  stifles  its  martial  spirit  breeds  a  race  of  vassals.  It  has  always 
been  so.  It  always  will  be  so.  It  is  the  martial  spirit  which  refuses 
to  be  trampled  on.  It  is  the  martial  spirit  which  fights  oppression  in 
the  only  way  that  oppression  ever  yet  was  fought,  by  stout  blows 
from  strong  arms,  inspired  by  good  stout  hearts.  Every  nation  on 
earth  that  hasn't  had  the  martial  spirit  has  been  oppressed.  And  no 
nation  with  it  has  been  oppressed  if  it  was  strong  enough  and 
numerous  enough.  Any  nation  with  the  martial  spirit  overthrew 
oppression,  and  if  it  wasn't  numerous  enough,  like  Ireland,  it  raised 
hell  for  a  thousand  years.     (Applause.) 

O,  my  friends,  what  are  you  thinking  of?  The  martial  spirit  has 
been  the  saving  grace  of  mankind.  I  come  from  a  little  town  in 
Massachusetts  where  the  same  people  have  lived  for  three  hundred 
years.    We  fought  the  Indians ;  we  conquered  their  country.   We  fought 


Must  We  Arm  ?  23 


the  French  Canadians,  and  we  drove  them  out.  We  fought  King 
George's  tax  gatherers  when  they  tried  to  take  our  property  away 
from  us,  and  we  will  fight  the  people's  tax  gatherers  when  they  try 
to  take  our  property  away  from  us,  too.  One  hundred  and  forty 
years  ago,  on  an  April  day,  the  people  in  my  town  marched  to  Lexing- 
ton with  the  martial  spirit  of  America  blazing  in  those  embattled 
farmers'  breasts  and  lighting  their  eyes  with  a  holy  light  which  has 
beaconed  their  successors  ever  since.  Do  you  ask  me,  bone  of  their 
bone  and  flesh  of  their  flesh,  to  shroud  that  mighty  light  in  some 
puny  cloth  woven  in  a  gilded  loom,  set  up  by  the  minions  of  a  vain 
and,  I  hope,  repentant  Croesus.  You  ask  in  vain.  Better  the  fierce 
watch  dog  than  the  cowering  sheep !  Better  fighting  Sparta  than 
soft,  luxurious  Tyre !  Better  Japan,  bursting  with  arms,  than  China 
slobbering  with  lolling  tongue,  awaiting  dismemberment!  But  better 
still,  a  nation  ready  but  not  eager,  mighty,  but  not  aggressive;  firm, 
but  not  quarrelsome,  having  in  mind  the  nature  and  history  of  the 
American  people  who,  like  their  fathers  who  have  gone  before  them, 
are  neither  children  nor  saints — nor  will  we  ever  be  saints — ^but  we 
are  men  in  a  world  of  men.     (Applause.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Congressman  Gardner  would  not  have 
himself  called  a  militarist.  I  do  not  suppose  the  next  speaker  would 
call  himself  a  pacifist  or  a  pacificist.  It  makes  one  feel  like  sneezing 
to  pronounce  those  words.  A  pacifist  has  been  defined  as  one  who 
believes  that  an  American  citizen  with  a  pure  heart  and  a  feather 
duster  can  lick  his  weight  in  wild  cats.  I  don't  know  whether  that  is 
a  prejudiced  definition  or  not.  Whatever  the  next  speaker  is,  he  is 
not  a  Congressman.  (Laughter.)  He  might  be  called  a  near- 
Congressman.  (Hearty  applause.)  And  I  think  we  would  be  justified 
in  calling  him  a  nearer-Congressman,  for  the  day  is  doubtless  not  far 
distant  when  Morris  Hillquit  will  be  one  of  New  York's  representa- 
tives in  Congress.  (Very  hearty  applause.)  We  are  going  to  see 
now  what  sort  of  a  fight  he  can  put  up  against  Congressman  Gardner. 
(Applause.)  V 


24  Must  We  Arm  ? 


MR.  HILLQUIT :     Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen : 

I  wish  to  thank  the  Chairman  for  launching  this  unexpected  politi- 
cal boom,  and  T  want  to  start  making  friends  with  my  future  colleague 
in  Congress  by  saying  that  I  do  not  entirely  disagree  with  him. 

I  have  been  convinced  by  his  argument  to  this  extent,  that 
from  his  point  of  view,  his  position  in  unassailable.  If  we  grant 
his  premise  that  the  United  States  is  in  danger  of  becoming  involved 
in  war  with  a  first-class  foreign  power,  we  must  accept  his  conclusion 
that  the  country  is  woefully  unprepared  for  such  an  emergency. 

But  I  cannot  accept  my  opponent's  premise.  I  maintain  that 
the  argument  of  modern  American  militarism,  of  which  Mr. 
Gardner  is  one  of  the  leading  exponents,  is  based  on  a  colossal 
fallacy.  The  United  States  is  not  in  danger  of  war.  It  has  never 
been  safer  from  hostile  attack  than  it  is  at  this  period. 

Mr.  Gardner  seems  to  regard  war  as  something  independent 
of  human  agencies  and  beyond  human  control,  as  a  calamity  in 
the  nature  of  the  eruption  of  a  volcano  or,  to  use  his  own  com- 
parison, the  outbreak  of  a  fire  I  maintain  that  wars  are  man- 
made;  that  the  civilized  nations  of  to-day  have  it  within  their 
power  to  abolish  them,  and  that,  as  far  as  the  United  States  is 
concerned,  we  shall  never  face  another  war,  unless  we  deliberately 
choose  to  make  war. 

A  VOICE  FROM  THE  AUDIENCE :    How  do  you  know  ? 

I  am  asked  how  I  know.  Let  me  try  to  answer  by  a  reference 
to  the  present  war. 

What  was  the  cause  of  the  appalling  slaughter  which  is  now 
shaking  the  foundations  of  Europe?    Let  ms  analyze  it  carefully, 


Must  We  Arm  ?  25 


for  the  fate  of  unfortunate  Europe  holds  a*  solemn  warning  for 
us,  on  the  happier  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

The  total  area  of  Europe  is  3,570,000  square  miles,  or  just 
as  large  as  the  continental  United  States,  including  Alaska.  That 
area  is  peopled  by  more  than  four  hundred  million  human  beings, 
and  is  divided  into  twenty-two  separate  political  sovereignties, 
many  of  which  are  in  turn  composed  of  several  distinct  countries, 
more  or  less  loosely  connected  by  the  ties  of  a  common  political 
government.  The  boundaries  of  these  numerous  countries  have 
been  formed  arbitrarily  and  capriciously  by  the  unreasoning  pro- 
cess of  historical  development.  They  split  ethnological  units  and 
combine  incongruous  national  groups ;  they  cut  off  large  sections  of 
the  continent  from  necessary  maritime  outlets,  and  often  impede 
free  commerce  and  intercourse  between  the  nations.  The  political 
history  of  Europe  is  a  chronicle  of  succeeding  changes  of  its  map 
and  of  international  intrigues  and  wars  which  have  caused  or 
accompanied  such  changes.  And  every  war  between  two  or  more 
countries  has  created  deep  international  grudges,  has  laid  the 
foundation  for  new  wars. 

The  everlasting  strife  between  the  nations  of  crowded  and 
divided  Europe  has  become  more  acute  in  recent  times  through 
the  growth  of  international  trade.  Although  a  warship  has  never 
helped  to  sell  a  can  of  sardines  or  a  bale  of  cotton,  the  nations  of 
Europe  have  conceived  the  superstitious  notion  that  a  country's 
oversea  trade  must  be  protected  by  a  strong  navy.  Although  no 
colony  has  ever  been  of  financial  or  material  advantage  to  the 
mother-country,  the  trading  classes  of  Europe  have  come  to  be- 
lieve that  their  prosperity  depends  on  the  ''ownership"  of  large 
oversea  colonies.  The  leading  countries  of  Europe  thus 
entered  into  a  ruinous  rivalry  in  naval  construction  and 
in  the  acquisition  of  colonial  possessions.     Within  the  last  thirty 


26  Must  We  Arm  ? 


years  England  and  France  have  acquired  whole  empires  in  Africa, 
and  Germany  has  secured  a  colonial  territory  five  times  the  size 
of  the  fatherland.  The  imperialistic  policy  of  expansion  has  be- 
come the  keynote  of  European  international  politics.  The  territory 
available  for  colonies  was  soon  preempted,  and  the  further  expan- 
sion of  colonial  possessions  of  each  European  country  had  mainly 
to  be  accomplished  at  the  expense  of  other  European  powers. 
Every  country  suspected  the  other  of  a  design  to  expand  and  to 
steal  colonies;  every  country  was  eager  to  expand  and  ready  to 
steal  colonies.  Each  mistrusted  the  peaceful  intentions  of  its 
neighbor,  and  began  to  increase  its  armies  and  navies.  It  was  all 
done  for  the  ''national  security,**  not  in  preparation  for  war  but  in 
"preparation  against  war,"  as  Mr.  Gardner  would  say,  just  as  a 
sort  of  "peace  insurance,'*  but  each  nation  wanted  to  be  a  little 
more  secure  than  the  other,  and  so  the  European  rivalry  of  arma- 
ment started  on  its  mad  career.  The  world  has  never  been  afflicted 
with  such  an  insane  spirit  of  militarism  as  it  has  within  the  last 
forty  years.  Prior  to  the  Franco-Prussian  war  Prussia  was  the 
only  country  in  Europe  to  maintain  a  standing  army  based  on 
general  compulsory  military  service.  Since  then  the  system  has 
been  adopted  by  every  European  power  except  Great  Britain. 
Since  1870  the  nations  now  at  war  have  expended  on  military  and 
naval  preparations  the  stupendous  sum  of  $40,000,000,000,  forty 
times  the  famous  war  indemnity  exacted  by  victorious  Prussia 
from  France,  besides  wasting  the  best  years  of  the  lives  of  their 
citizens  in  useless  and  brutalizing  drills.  Every  year  the  burdens 
of  militarism  became  more  oppressive  until  the  nations  of  Europe 
groaned  under  their  intolerable  weight.  By  1914  Great  Britain  had 
a  naval  armada  the  like  of  which  the  waters  of  the  world  had 
never  seen,  and  the  continental  powers  of  Europe  had  trained 
armies  aggregating  about  four  million  men  in  times  of  peace 
and   no   less    than    eighteen    million   on    a   war    footing.     Each 


Must  We  Arm  ?  27 


country  was  fully  prepared  to  fight  any  country  of  similar  size, 
but  not  one  of  them  was  strong  enough  to  fight  a  combination  of 
powers.  And  so  they  entered  into  military  alliances  for  offensive 
and  defensive  purposes,  a  sort  of  war-partnerships. 

Long  before  the  outbreak  of  the  war  Europe  was  divided  into 
hostile  camps,  and  was  in  full  battle  array.  Its  countries  had  an 
abundance  of  the  things  Mr.  Gardner's  heart  is  yearning  for: 
battleships,  torpedo  boat  destroyers,  submarines,  aeroplanes,  Zep- 
pelins, forts,  guns,  rifles,  ammunition  and  big  armies.  They  were 
ready  for  war — and  they  got  their  war.  Their  anti-war  insurance 
turned  out  to  be  a  bad  case  of  over-insurance.    (Hearty  applause.) 

For  all  the  human  lives  that  have  been  ruthlessly  destroyed 
in  this  war,  for  the  homes  that  have  been  wrecked,  for  the  towns 
and  villages  that  have  been  devastated,  for  the  fiendish  atrocities 
that  have  been  perpetrated  and  the  sufferings  that  have  been  in- 
flicted on  mankind,  the  "patriots"  of  Europe  who  have  been  urging 
on  their  gullible  countrymen  the  need  of  ever  greater  military 
preparedness,  bear  an  awful  share  of  responsibility. 

To  sum  up  then,  the  main  causes  of  the  great  European  war 
were  artificial  political  boundaries,  historical  grudges,  commercial 
rivalry,  imperialism  and  militarism. 

Turning  now  from  this  analysis  to  an  examination  of  the 
conditions  in  the  United  States  we  find  a  complete  absence  of  all 
factors  that  naturally  make  for  war,  and  a  happy  combination  of 
conditions  calculated  to  ensure  lasting  peace.  Our  country  is  so 
vast  in  territory,  so  varied  and  abundant  in  natural  wealth  and 
resources,  that  we  are  as  a  nation  economically  self-sufficient. 
The  United  States  is  more  self-sufficient  than  any  country  in  the 
world.  If  we  were  to-day  cut  off  from  the  world  market;  if  we 
could  not  import  or  export  a  dollar's  worth  of  goods,  our  popula- 


28  Must  We  Arm  ? 


tion  could  still  live  in  comfort  and  abundance.  But  there  is  no 
need  for  abandoning  our  foreign  trade.  No  country  will  make 
war  on  us  just  because  we  sell  to  it  our  wheat  or  corn  or  buy 
from  it  its  cloth  or  dyestuffs.  We  need  no  seaports  for  our  trade 
that  we  do  not  have,  for  we  own  the  whole  coastline  on  both  sides 
of  our  continent.  We  are  not  hampered  by  vexatious  boundaries 
and  customs  duties  in  moving  our  goods  from  inland  points  to 
harbors,  for  we  own  every  inch  of  the  solid  territory  between  the 
two.  oceans,  from  the  Canadian  to  the  Mexican  border.  If  national 
boundaries  were  obliterated  in  Europe,  if  England,  France,  Italy, 
Germany,  Austria  and  all  other  European  countries  would  unite 
into  one  great  federation  of  nations  with  a  common  government 
and  administration,  if  the  ideal  of  the  United  States  of  Europe 
would  become  a  reality,  that  would  clearly  mean  the  end  of  wars 
in  Europe.  Well,  in  the  United  States  we  have  actually  accom- 
plished what  to  Europe  is  still  an  iridescent  dream  of  the  remote 
future — we  have  established  a  thoroughly  harmonious  and  indis- 
soluble federation  of  states. 

We  need  no  colonies.  We  can  easily  dispense  with  those  we 
already  have.  Our  acquisition  of  the  Philippines,  Porto  Rico, 
Hawaii,  was  a  most  senseless  political  adventure.  Not  a  man, 
woman  or  child  in  the  United  States  has  ever  benefited  to  the  ex- 
tent of  a  copper  from  our  "possessions,"  and  the  only  purpose 
they  have  ever  served  has  been  to  increase  our  taxes,  give  occupa- 
tion to  our  army,  and  furnish  a  text  for  our  militarist  propagan- 
dist. 

We  have  no  national  grudges  to  settle.  The  sectional  feelings 
between  the  North  and  the  South  have  long  died  out,  and  if  they 
had  not,  of  what  avail  would  it  be  to  arm  the  whole  country,  to 
prepare  both  sections  equally  for  war? 

And  finally  we  have  no  neiehbors  who  may  involve  us  in  war. 


Must  We  Arm  ?  29 


To  the  North  of  us  there  is  only  Canada,  to  the  South  of  us  there 
is  only  Mexico,  to  the  East  there  is  Europe — three  thousand  miles 
away,  and  to  the  West  is  Asia — five  thousand  miles  away.  We 
need  not  apprehend  war  with  Canada.  We  have  never  had  war 
with  her  and  there  is  not  one  reason  why  we  ever  should  have. 
We  have  always  lived  in  peace  and  amity  with  our  northern 
neighbor  although  we  do  not  have  a  single  fort  on  our  3,000-mile 
boundary  line.  Perhaps  if  we  did  build  forts  and  mass  troops  on 
the  Canadian  border,  we  would  manage  to  get  into  a  fight  with 
her.     (Applause) 

We  certainly  need  not  fear  invasion  from  Mexico,  and  wc 
have  no  just  cause  to  invade  Mexico.  Whether  the  forces  of 
Carranza  or  those  of  Villa  will  eventually  gain  the  upper  hand  is 
a  matter  of  profound  interest  to  us.  But  our  interest  does  not 
justify  us  in  assuming  to  fashion  the  political  and  social  destines 
of  our  sister  republic  in  accordance  with  our  notions  and  by  force 
of  arms.  (Applause.)  No  nation  has  ever  been  truly  freed  by 
the  grace  of  a  foreign  power.  The  people  of  Mexico  will  ultima- 
tely work  out  their  own  salvation  if  left  alone.  The  only  right 
we  can  claim  for  any  interference  with  Mexican  affairs  is  the 
protection  of  the  "Mexican  property-rights"  of  our  citizens.  (Ap- 
lause.)  But  this  alleged  right  is  based  on  a  most  shaky  founda- 
tion. If  any  American  capitalist  cares  to 'invest  in  Mexican  min- 
ing, oil  or  land  concessions,  he  does  so  for  his  private  gain,  and 
should  do  so  at  his  own  risk  and  peril.  (Hearty  applause.)  This 
country  has  no  interest  and  no  moral  right  to  spend  our  people's 
money  and  to  shed  our  people's  blood  for  the  accommodation  of 
our  capitalist  adventurers. 

Remains  the  question  whether  we  are  or  ever  can  be  in 
danger  of  invasion  by  a  great  non-American  power.  I  maintain 
that  to  any  mind  not  clouded  by  hysteria  such  a  danger  can  only 


30  Must  We  Arm  ? 


appear  in  the  nature  of  a  huge  joke.  There  are  two  good  reasons 
why  no  European  or  Asiatic  power  will  ever  attempt  an  invasion 
of  the  United  States:  First,  they  cannot  do  it,  and  second,  they 
would  gain  nothing  by  it  if  they  could.  Let  us  assume,  for  the 
purpose  of  illustration,  that  Germany  decides  to  make  war  on  us. 
I  take  Germany  because  just  now  she  is  the  black  sheep  among 
nations  and  considered  capable  of  almost  anything.  To  wage 
successful  war  on  our  territory  she  would  first  have  to  get  her 
army  across  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  We  won't  go  to  Germany  to.be 
invaded,  of  course,  so  Germany  will  have  to  come  to  us.  For  that 
purpose  she  will  have  to  build  and  equip  from  a  thousand  to  two 
thousand  transports  to  carry  a  million  to  two  million  soldiers 
with  supplies,  arms  and  ammunition  to  last  for  many  months. 
The  preparations  for  such  an  expedition  would  probably  take 
from  ten  to  twenty-five  years  and  cost  a  few  billion  dollars,  but 
why  consider  such  trifles.  Let  us  assume  the  fleet  has  arrived 
and  landed  without  resistance.  Germany  now  proceeds  to  "oc- 
cupy" us.  Her  armies  take  possession  of  our  civil  government, 
displace  President  Wilson  and  his  cabinet  in  Washington.  All 
governors  of  our  forty-eight  states,  all  mayors  and  other  officials, 
some  hundred  thousands  in  number,  are  supplanted  by  German 
military  officers.  How  do  you  think  Tammany  would  take  that? 
(Laughter.)  But  assume  it  is  all  done.  To  support  a  hostile 
military  occupation  in  a  country  as  large  and  populous  as  the 
United  States,  Germany  would  have  to  keep  her  entire  army 
here,  leaving  her  own  country  undefended.  And  then?  And  then 
we  might  turn  to  the  victorious  Kaiser  and  blandly  ask  him: 
"Well,  Kaiser,  now  that  you  have  got  us,  what  are  you  going  to 
do  with  us?'*  And  it  would  be  a  rnost  perplexing  question. 
(Laughter  and  applause.)  What  could  the  Kaiser  do  with  us? 
Take  our  wealth?  There  is  not*  enough  loose  loot  in  the  whole 
United  States  to  pay  for  the  building  of  fifty  transports.     Our 


Must  We  Arm?  31 


wealth  is  in  our  land  and  industries,  our  mines,  factories  and  rail- 
roads, and  above  all  in  our  accomplished  methods  of  wealth 
production  and  in  the  brain  and  brawn  of  our  working  classes. 
(Applause.)  These  cannot  be  taken  from  us,  and  if  our  industries 
were  impeded  or  destroyed  Germany  would  suffer  from  it  almost 
as  much  as  we  ourselves.  Our  railroad,  mining  and  industrial 
stocks  are  owned  by  capitalists  of  all  nationalities.  They  are 
quoted  on  the  Berlin  Bourse  as  well  as  on  our  Stock  Exchange. 
A  collapse  of  our  securities  and  a  cessation  of  our  foreign  trade 
would  spell  financial  ruin  and  industrial  panic  in  Germany. 

What  else  could  Germany  do?  Tax  us  or  levy  a  heavy  in- 
demnity? She  could  not  raise  enough  to  cover  the  expense  of 
her  expedition  without  ruining  the  country  and  again  ruining  her- 
self. 

What  else?  We  have  heard  about  the  "surplus  population" 
of  Germany  for  which  the  German  nation  is  trying  to  provide 
new  territory.  The  Kaiser  might  be  tempted  to  annex  one  of  our 
states  for  his  surplus  population,  say  New  Jersey,  and  to  make 
Hoboken  the  capital  of  that  province.  But  is  Germany  really 
"bursting  with  population"  as  Mr.  Gardner  expresses  it?  Wc 
have  had  very  little  emigration  from  Germany  within  the  last 
twenty-five  years.  The  Germans  on  the  whole  seem  to  find  room 
and  happiness  in  their  own  country.  But  suppose  they  should 
again  feel  like  settling  in  this  country  in  large  numbers.  What 
of  it?  They  have  been  coming  by  hundreds  of  thousands  in 
earlier  years.  They  have  peopled  entire  cities  and  states.  They 
have  become  an  integral  part  of  our  population,  and  they  did  not 
have  to  come  with  an  armed  force  to  accomplish  that.    (Applause.) 

Nor  could  Germany  convert  us  into  a  colony.  Mr.  Gardner 
has  reminded  us  that  England  has  had  her  experience  with  us  as 
a  colony  almost  a  century  and  a  half  ago,  when  the  population  of 


32  Must  We  Arm  ? 


the  country  was  less  than  three  millions,  and  no  other  European 
or  Asiatic  power  will  be  tempted  to  repeat  the  experiment  to-day 
with  our  hundred  millions  of  people. 

The  trouble  with  our  apostles  of  militarism  is  that  they  still 
think  in  the  terms  of  the  early  middle  ages,  when  nations  were 
wandering  across  the  scantily  inhabited  globe  in  nomadic  hordes 
seeking  settlements,  or  making  war  on  each  other  for  pillage  or 
booty.  (Applause.)  They  do  not  realize  that  the  great  civilized 
nations  of  modern  times  cannot  be  conquered,  destroyed,  or  sub- 
jugated, particularly  a  nation  so  situated  as  the  United  States. 

But  how  about  Belgium,  it  may  be  asked.  Belgium  is  a  small 
country  immediately  adjoining  Germany,  with  a  population  about 
five  per  cent,  of  ours.  And  Belgium  has  not  been  destroyed  and, 
as  things  look  now,  will  not  be  destroyed. 

But  Mr.  Gardner  has  reminded  us  of  our  Monroe  Doctrine 
and  our  Asiatic  exclusion  laws.  He  sees  visions  of  attacks  on  both, 
and  heroically  maintains  that  he  would  not  leave  the  decisions  of 
such  vital  questions  to  the  ''machinations  of  an  international  court." 
I  admit  that  an  international  court  of  justice  or  arbitration  may 
be  fallible.  But  what  does  my  opponent  ofifer  by  way  of  substitute 
as  a  more  reliable  instrument  of  social  justice — the  decision  of 
weapons,  the  arbitrament  of  brute  force?  If  that  position  is  sound, 
let  us  speedily  disband  all  courts  of  justice  in  the  United  States 
and  re-introduce  the  methods  of  single  combat  and  tribal  feuds  for 
the  adjustment  of  our  disputes. 

The  gospel  of  our  awakening  military  "patriotism"  would  be 
amusing,  if  it  were  not  so  serious  and  dangerous.  The  appeal  to 
national  vanity  and  aggressive  combativeness,  the  appeal  to  the 
animal  instincts  in  men  is  always  dangerous,  but  it  is  particularly 
so  in  these  times  of  universal  war-madness.  (Applause.)  The 
propaganda  for  increased  armaments  at  this  time  is  pregnant  with 


Must  We  Arm  ?  33 


gravest  menace  to  the  well-being  and  security  of  the  nation, 
particularly  because  it  is  likely  to  be  promoted  and  intensified 
by  sordid  economic  interests.  [  refer  to  the  so-called 
"armor  ring,"  which  has  reaped  the  prime  and  only  benefit  from 
the  billions  this  nation  has  expended  for  armaments,  and  whose 
business  interests  are  best  served  by  war  scares,  war  preparations 
and  actual  wars.  Mr.  Gardner  has  told  you  about  the  Carnegie 
Peace  Fund  of  $10,000,000,  with  an  annual  income  of  well-nigh 
half-a-million  dollars,  all  used  for  anti-war  propaganda.  But  he 
has  failed  to  mention  the  millions  expended  by  the  international 
trust  for  pro-war  propaganda.  (Very  hearty  applause.)  I  do 
not  charge  that  the  present  militaristic  agitation  has  been  instigated 
by  the  patriotic  gentlemen  engaged  in  the  manufacture. of  armor 
plate,  arms,  and  munitions,  but  I  do  say  that  these  gentlemen  have 
been  known  in  the  past  to  work  up  war  sentiments  in  their  own 
countries  and  in  foreign  countries,  and  to  make  millions  from  the 
sale  at  extortionate  prices  of  armor  plate,  and  rotten  armor  plate 
at.  that,  for  the  defense  of  their  beloved  countries,  as  well,  as  bat- 
tleships and  guns  which  are  expected  to  be  directed  against  their 
countries.  War  means  business  to  these  gentlemen;  war  pro- 
paganda to  them  is  canvassing  of  trade,  and  they  are  powerful  and 
alert  and  suspiciously  and  perniciously  patriotic  in  matters  military. 

Strenuous  preparation  "against  war"  means  not  only  invitation 
of  war,  it  means  the  brutalization  of  the  country.  A  military 
power  is  a  despotic  power  and  training  for  war  has  a  most  de- 
moralizing effect  on  the  youth  of  the  country.  You  may  say  all 
you  want  about  the  ennobling  influences  of  military  discipline  and 
the  "martial  spirit,"  but  it  is  a  matter  of  common  and  notorious 
knowledge  that  the  barracks  of  professional  soldiers  reek  with 
brutality,  vice  and  degeneracy.     (Hearty  applause.) 

But  this  is  not  all.    There  is  another  side  to  military  prepared- 


34  *MusT  We  Arm  ? 


ness  about  which  Mr.  Gardner  has  been  strangely  silent.  He  has 
told  us  the  pathetic  story  of  our  lame  aeroplanes,  our  floating  sub- 
marines, our  gunless  forts  and  empty  guns,  our  obsolete  ships  and 
lonely  troops,  but  he  has  not  shown  you  the  reverse  side  of  the 
medal — the  tremendous  cost  of  that  crippled  establishment.  The 
fact  is  that  we  already  expend  on  our  military  and  naval  forces 
larger  sums  than  any  other  country  in  the  world.  In  1913  we  paid 
for  our  army  more  than  $165,000,000,  for  our  navy  almost  $141,- 
000,000,  and  for  military  pensions  upward  of  $172,000,000,  a  total 
of  almost  half  a  billion  dollars  for  wars,  past  and  prospective,  not 
including  the  cost  of  the  state  militia.  In  the  same  year  Great 
Britain  and  Russia  each  expended  for  similar  purposes  less  than 
$450,000,000  and  militaristic  Germany  less  than  $300,000,000.  It 
costs  Germany  to  keep  a  soldier  in  the  field  $183  per  year.  It 
costs  us  $1,545. 

In  the  last  twenty  years  we  have  expended  upward  of  $3,191,- 
000,000  on  our  army  and  navy,  exclusive  of  pensions.  And  still 
we  are  ludicrously  unprepared,  and  are  urged  to  increase  our 
military  and  naval  forces.  Our  advocates  of  ''preparedness"  re- 
commend a  trained  army  of  800,000  men,  205,000  in  the  standing 
army  and  595,000  in  the  reserves.  They  recommend  a  navy  at 
least  equal  to  that  of  Germany.  An  army  of  that  size  would  in- 
volve  an  expenditure  of  no  less  than  $750,000,000  per  year,  and 
the  navy  would  consume  about  $500,000,000  annually  in  construc- 
tion and  maintenance.  That  is  a  total  of  $1,250,000,000  per  year, 
and  nearly  $1,500,000,000  including  pensions,  $15  per  capita  of  the 
population,  $75  per  family,  about  one-sixth  of  the  average  annual 
earnings  of  the  American  worker.  And  these  monstrous  annual 
offerings  at  the  altar  of  the  military  moloch  must  be  taken  from 
the   vitally  necessary  works   of   social   progress  and   civilization. 

Mr.  Gardner  and  his  militarist  friends  are  so  obsessed  with  the 


Must  We  Arm  ?  35 


imaginary  danger  of  war  with  a  foreign  nation  that  they  do  not 
seem  to  realize  the  vastily  graver  dangers  of  the  actual  daily  war 
waged  within  the  nation,  the  frightful  and  inhuman  industrial  war, 
which  calls  for  all  available  resources  and  effects  of  the  country. 
In  our  last  war  with  Spain  less  than  three  hundred  American 
soldiers  were  killed  on  the  battlefield,  but  more  than  fifty  thousand 
American  workmen  are  annually  killed  in  our  mines,  works  and 
factories  and  on  our  railroads,  while  about  half  a  million  are  in- 
jured, m.aimed  and  crippled  in  our  industries.  With  a  fraction  of 
the  millions  expended  for  military  purposes  we  could  provide  for 
a  sufficient  and  efficient  corps  of  mine,  railroad  and  factory  in- 
spectors and  for  the  maintenance  of  proper  safeguards,  which 
would  reduce  these  frightful  industrial  casualties  to  a  minimum. 

Tens  of  thousands  of  our  people  annually  succumb  to  the 
ravages  of  tuberculosis,  the  typical  disease  of  poverty.  We  could 
practically  stamp  out  the  dread  white  plague  by  applying  a  portion 
of  the  senseless  military  expenditures  to  the  building  of  numerous 
sanitaria,  offering  plenty  of  fresh  air  and  nournishing  food  to  the 
unfortunate  victims  of  the  disease.     (Applause.) 

There  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  aged  workers  in  all  parts 
of  the  country  succumbing  in  helpless  and  pathetic  destitution. 
They  have  spent  their  manhood,  their  strength  and  lives  in  useful 
service  to  their  fellow  men.  They  have  helped  to  make  this  nation 
great  and  wealthy  and  powerful,  and  now  that  they  have  become 
old  and  feeble  and  incapable  of  making  substantial  profits  for  our 
captains  of  industry,  an  ungrateful  community  consigns  them  to 
the  cheerless  almshouse,  the  cold  street  and  the  dread  bread  line. 
We  owe  a  duty  to  these  aged  public  servants,  the  soldiers  and  he- 
roes of  our  industries.  Less  than  half  of  the  military  budget  would 
provide  old-age  pensions  for  them  and  enable  them  to  close  their 
lives  in  mciderate  comfort  and  decent  self-respect.     (Applause.) 


36  Must  We  Arm  ? 


Just  at  this  time  the  United  States  is  undergoing  one  of  the 
severest  economic  trials  in  its  history.  The  wheels  of  its  industrial 
process  have  become  hopelessly  clogged.  Millions  of  American 
workers  are  without  jobs  and  without  bread.  With  an  expenditure 
'  of  a  hundred  million  dollars,  taken  from  the  war  budget,  the  gov- 
ernment could  organize  numerous  industrial  enterprises,  set  the 
destitute  jobless  toilers  to  the  work  of  making  things  they  need 
for  the  sustenance  of  their  lives,  revive  business  and  break  the 
vicious  circle  of  business  depression,  unemployment  and  poverty. 

With  the  millions  and  billions  of  dollars  called  for  by  un- 
productive military  expenses  we  could  improve  our  system  of 
education,  raise  the  condition  of  our  workers,  and  introduce  meas- 
ures of  civic  and  social  justice,  which  would  make  this  country 
vastly  stronger,  more  irresistible  and  unconquerable  than  all  the 
dreadnaughts  and  aeroj>lanes  in  creation.     (Hearty  applause.) 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  arrived  at  the  parting 
of  the  ways.  They  will  have  to  choose  between  embarking  on  an 
adventurous  and  exhausting  policy  of  militarism  or  staking  their 
future  on  a  rigid  determination  to  mantain  peace  and  social  pro- 
gress. The  present  militarist  agitation  is  only  a  mild  and  meek 
beginning.  Where  will  it  end?  To-day  Mr.  Gardner  is  contented 
with  an  army  of  800,000  men  and  a  navy  second  in  rank.  Will  he 
be  satisfied  when  he  gets  it?  No.  For  if  we  are  to  be  prepared 
for  war — I  beg  pardon — "against  war"  in  general,  not  for  war 
with  a  particular  nation,  but  war  with  all  comers,  we  may  con- 
ceive of  a  conflict  not  only  with  a  first-class  foreign  power,  but 
with  a  combination  of  powers.  All  the  powers  now  united  against 
Germany  may  turn  against  us.  Mr.  Gardner  says  they  will  be 
ready  for  a  new  job  as  soon  as  they  are  through  with  their  present 
one,  and  Germany  herself  may  join  them  in  the  attack.  War 
makes  even   queerer  bed-fellows  than   politics,   as   recent  events 


Must  We  Arm  ?  37 


have  amply  demonstrated.  Japan  is  fighting  on  the  same  side  with 
Russia  in  this  war,  and  every  power  on  either  side  is  fighting  with 
some  former  enemy  against  some  former  ally.  To  be  fully  pre- 
pared, to  be  in  a  position  to  look  the  entire  world  "squarely  in  the 
face  as  one  strong  man  against  the  other"  with  a  proper  "martial 
spirit"  born  of  a  "strong  arm"  we  must  have  land  forces  surpassing 
those  of  Germany  and  a  navy  superior  to  that  of  Great  Britain. 
And  as  the  powers  of  Europe  increase  and  improve  their  military 
and  naval  forces,  we  must  keep  pace  with  them. 

Every  dreadnaught  built  becomes  obsolete  in  a  few  years,  and 
new  inventions  every  once  in  a  while  throw  all  military  equip- 
ments and  ammunition  into  the  scrapheap.  There  is  no  stop  or 
pause  in  the  ever-increasing  burdens  of  military  preparation.  A 
nation  that  once  allows  itself  to  be  drawn  into  the  mad  vortex  of 
military  rivalry,  cannot  resist,  cannot  recede.  When  Russia  began 
to  choke  under  the  intolerable  load  of  militarism.  Czar  Nicholas 
cried  out  in  vain  for  a  general  limitation  of  armaments.  When 
the  naval  rivalry  between  Great  Britain  and  Germany  reached  the 
breaking  point,  the  former  implored  without  success  for  a  "naval 
holiday."  Military  "powers"  are  the  slaves  of  the  military  system. 
Mr.  Gardner  has  referred  somewhat  ironically  to  the  war-attitude 
of  the  Socialists  of  Germany,  France  and  Belgium,  who  have  all 
voted  war  credits  to  their  governments  and  are  now  engaged  in 
the  slaughter  of  their  comrades.  The  situation  is  certainly  tragic, 
but  Mr.  Gardner  has  failed  to  draw  the  only  true  lesson  from  it. 
When  the  war  exploded  among  the  overarmed  and  overprepared 
nations  of  Europe,  no  power  on  earth  could  withstand  its  force. 
It  was  too  late  to  avert  the  catastrophe  then.  The  time  to  act  was 
in  the  early  days  of  military  agitation  in  Europe,  when  the  begin- 
ning rivalry  of  armament  laid  the  foundation  for  the  war.  That 
was  the  time  to  protest  and  to  resist.    (Great  applause.) 


38  Must  We  Arm  ? 


And  so  it  is  in  the  United  States.  When  we  once  adopt  the 
policy  of  ever-increasing  armament,  when  our  cities  and  towns 
arc  full  of  barracks,  when  we  are  swelled  with  the  "martial  spirit" 
which  Mr.  Gardner  advocates,  nothing  will  save  us  from  a  catac- 
lysm similar  to  that  which  is  now  engulfing  pooi  Europe.  The 
insidious  and  dangerous  militarist  propaganda  must  be  stopped 
before  it  has  acquired  much  force. 

And  the  danger  of  militarism  to  our  country  is  not  imaginary, 
but  terribly  real.  In  1897  we  spent  on  our  army  and  navy  less 
than  $72,000,000.  To-day  we  have  raised  that  sum  to  more  than 
$306,000,000,  an  increase  of  about  325%,  and  now  we  are  again 
asked  to  double  or  treble  our  military  burdens.  And  for  what? 
For  a  fantom  fear,  for  the  brood  of  hysterical  imaginations. 

The  modern  militarist  propaganda  in  the  United  States  has 
received  its  main  impetus  from  the  war  in  Europe.  But  that  war 
is  rather  a  guaranty  of  peace  than  a  menace  to  us.  Its  conclusion 
will  leave  the  military  powers  of  Europe  exhausted  and  in  any- 
thing but  a  bellicose  spirit.  It  is  true  countries  have  recovered 
after  wars  and  have  fought  again.  But  a  war  of  this  magnitude 
and  ferocity  does  pot  occur  even  once  in  a  century,  and  when  it 
does  occur  it  is  always  followed  by  a  long  era  of  peace. 

Some  day  the  orgy  of  murder  and  blood  which  is  now  devour- 
ing Europe  will  cease.  The  unfortunate  nations  at  war  will  pause, 
bleeding,  exhausted,  ashamed.  Their  war-intoxication  will  pass, 
and  they  will  begin  to  realize  the  unspeakable  horrors  of  it  all. 
Their  weary  eyes  will  encounter  nothing  but  ruin  and  desolation 
in  Europe,  they  will  turn  to  us,  the  great  republic  of  the  West, 
which  alone  of  all  powerful  nations  has  managed  to  maintain 
peace.  They  will  look  to  us  for  comfort,  for  hope  W^hat  shall 
be  our  answer?  Shall  it  be  the  same  vicious  rattling  of  sabres,  or 
shall  it  be  a  message  of  peace,  a  promise  of  a  saner,  better,  hu- 


Must  We  Arm  ?  39 


maner  world  for  the  future?  Let  it  be  peace.  The  United  States 
can  never  become  a  first-class  military  power.  Let  us  center  our 
ambition,  our  hope  and  aspiration  on  making  our  country  the 
first  great  peace  power  of  the  world.     (Prolonged  applause.) 

DR.  FAGNANI :  It  only  remains  for  me  to  voice,  very  inade- 
quately, the  gratitude  and  appreciation  of  this  superb  audience  to  both 
of  these  gentlemen  that  have  spoken  so  well.  Now  let  us  go  home 
and  think  it  over. 


40  Must  We  Arm  ? 


WHAT  THE  RAND  SCHOOL  IS 

The  establishment  of  the  Rand  School  in  1906  was  made  pos- 
sible by  an  endowment  provided,  at  the  suggestion  of  Prof.  George 
D.  Herron,  by  the  late  Mrs.  Carrie  D.  Rand,  with  a  contributory 
fund  added  by  her  daughter,  Mrs.  Carrie  Rand  Herron,  who 
showed  a  keen  interest  in  its  work  till  her  untimely  death  early 
in  1914.  The  income  from  this  fund  is  supplemented  by  tuition  fees 
and  by  donations  from  individuals  and  organizations  in  sympathy 
with  the  purpose  of  the  school. 

This  purpose,  as  originally  stated  and  as  since  adhered  to,  is 
twofold:  To  offer  to  the  public  opportunities  for  the  study  of 
Socialism;  and  to  offer  to  Socialists  instruction  on  lines  calculated 
to  make  them  more  efficient  workers  for  the  Cause. 

SOCIAL  SCIENCE  DEPARTMENT 

The  Rand  School  was  at  first  a  purely  local  institution,  offer- 
ing evening  and  Sunday  classes  in  Economics,  Sociology,  History, 
and  kindred  subjects,  and  also  in  English  and  Public  Speaking,  for 
residents  of  New  York  City  who  wished  to  use  to  the  best  advan- 
tage in  directed  study  such  time  as  they  could  spare  from  their 
bread  winning  occupations.  Some  attended  but  one  session  a 
week,  some  two,  three,  or  even  four.  Many  came  year  after  year  to 
study  different  subjects.  The  sexes  were  at  all  times  about  equally 
represented  in  the  student  body.  The  majority  were  mechanics, 
factory  operatives,  and  office  workers,  with  a  sprinkling  of  school 
teachers,  housewives,  professional  persons,  and  others.  From 
forty  to  sixty  per  cent,  were  members  of  the  Socialist  Party  at  the 
time  of  their  entry,  and  many  of  the  others  joined  the  party  or- 
ganization during  or  after  their  term  at  the  school.  Year  by  year 
the  number  of  individuals  attending  such  classes  at  the  central 
building  in  Nineteenth  Street  has  varied  between  200  and  450,  and 
the  aggregate  for  the  nine  years  runs  well  above  2,500.  But  these 
constitute  only  a  fraction  of  the  whole  body  of  Rand  School  stu- 
dents. 


Must  We  Arm  ?  41 


EXTENSION  CLASSES 

It  soon  became  evident  that  the  work  of  the  School  would  not 
and  could  not  be  kept  within  such  narrow  limits.  Extension  classes 
were  formed  from  time  to  time  in  outlying  parts  of  the  city  and 
in  neighboring  counties  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey,  and  in 
1913  an  autonomous  branch  was  established  in  the  East  Side.  The 
number  of  persons  who  have  attended  branch  classes  is  at  least 
equal   to  those  who  have  studied  at  the   central  school. 

As  the  work  of  the  Rand  School  became  known  throughout 
the  country,  requests  for  a  further  extension  of  its  services  came 
from  the  most  distant  places.  At  the  same  time  arose  the  ques- 
tion of  providing  for  persons  who  wished  for  more  thorough  and 
advanced  training  than  could  be  given  in  evening  classes.  The 
financial  difficulties  under  which  the  School  labors  made  it  a  seri- 
ous problem  to  meet  these  new  demands.  This  problem  has  been 
solved  along  two  lines. 

FULL-TIME  COURSE 

In  191 1  the  Rand  School  inaugurated  its  Full-Time  Course, 
for  persons  who  could  arrange  to  devote  themselves  wholly  to 
intensive  study  for  a  term  of  six  months.  In  the  four  years  that 
have  since  gone  by,  sixty-one  persons  have  entered  this  course. 

CORRESPONDENCE  DEPARTMENT 

In  1913  after  some  experimental  attempts,  the  Rand  School 
definitely  launched  its  Correspondence  Department,  which  met 
with  a  warm  welcome.  Up  to  the  present  time  correspondence 
courses  have  been  taken  up  by  about  3,600  persons.  The  National 
Executive  Committee  has  formally  endorsed  this  work  and  ad- 
vised locals  to  form  study  classes,  and  several  State  Secretaries 
have  spoken  in  warm  terms  of  the  service  rendered  by  such  classes 
in  strengthening  the  party  organization. 


42  Must  We  Arm  ? 


BUREAU  OF  LABOR  RESEARCH 

An  important  new  department  is  being  organized,  which  has 
a  double  function — to  investigate  problems  of  vital  interest  to  the 
Socialist  and  Labor  Movement  and  present  the  data  and  conclu- 
sions in  such  form  as  to  be  of  practical  use  to  editors,  lecturers, 
committees,  and  public  officials;  and  at  the  same  time  to  instruct 
and  train  a  group  of  young  men  and  women  in  the  technique  of 
original  research,  so  that  the  development  of  the  work  may  keep 
pace  with  the  growing  needs  of  the  party  and  the  unions. 

FINANCIAL  RESOURCES 

The  Rand  School  is  controlled  by  the  American  Socialist  So- 
ciety, an  incorporated  body,  which  has  always  followed  the  policy 
of  taking  in  only  party  members.  The  detailed  administration  is 
in  the  hands  of  an  Executive  Secretary  and  an  Educational  Di- 
rector, chosen  by  and  responsible  to  a  Board  of  Directors,  elected 
annually  by  the  Society. 

An  idea  seems  to  have  got  abroad  that  the  Rand  School  is  a 
richly  endowed  institution.  Unfortunately,  this  is  far  from  true. 
From  the  beginning  its  tasks  and  its  expenses  have  been  larger 
than  could  have  been  foreseen.  They  have  grown  from  year  to 
year,  and  they  will  go  on  growing.  The  income  from  the  Rand 
Fund  has  never  been  sufficient  to  meet  the  needs.  This  fund, 
moreover,  is  subject  to  diminution  and  ultimate  extinguishment. 

As  it  now  stands,  in  order  to  go  forward  without  fear,  the 
Rand  School  ought,  in  addition  to  the  fluctuating  and  eventually 
diminishing  income  from  the  Rand  Fund  and  the  revenue  derived 
from  tuition  fees,  benefit  entertainments,  and  book  sales,  to  have 
the  assurance  of  $3,500  a  year  for  its  General  Fund  and  at  least 
$2,000  a  year  for  its  Scholarship  Fund,  which  is  used  in  aiding  de- 
sirable Full-Time  students  who  are  unable  to  pay  their  own  way 
in  full. 

Single  contributions  or,  better  still,  pledges  of  annual  con- 
tributions  to  be  paid   at   stated   times  will  be  warmly  welcomed 


Must  We  Arm?  43 


by  the  Executive  Secretary,  upon  whom  rests  the  daily  responsi- 
bility of  "keeping  up  the  steam."' 

GROWTH 

Thus,  from  small  beginnings,  the  Rand  School  has  steadily 
grown  in  response  to  the  needs  of  the  movement,  until  to-day  it 
can  fairly  claim  to  rank  as  the  Workers'  University  of  the  United 
States.  Taking  all  departments  into  account,  it  has  had  more  than 
two  thousand  students  in  the  year  1914-15,  and  about  ten  thousand 
during  the  nine  years  of  its  existence.  Its  Directors  feel,  however, 
that  only  a  start  has  been  made.  They  intend  to  go  on,  as  in  the 
past,  with  a  minimum  of  wordy  promise  and  a  maximum  of  solid 
achievement,  confident  that  honest  and  unpretentious  service  will 
bring  the  support  necessary  for  further  development. 

For  information  on  any  or  all  of  the  departments  of  the  School 
send  for  bulletin. 

Instructors  and  Lecturers,  1915-1916: 

Samuel  E.  Beardsley  Juliet  Stuart  Poyntz,  A.  M. 

Louis  B.  Boudin  I.  M.  Rubinow,  Ph.  D. 

August  Clae^sens  Max   Schonberg 

Benjamin  C.  Gruenberg,  Ph.  D.  Prof.  James  T.  Shotwell 

Morris  Hillquit  John  Spargo 

Prof.  Scott  Nearing  N.  L  Stone,  Ph.  D. 

and  others 


Educational  Director,  Algernon  Lee 
Executive  Secretary,  Bertha  H.  Mailly 


44  Must  We  Arm? 


THE  NEW  YORK  CALL  DEVOTED  TO  THE  INTERESTS 
OF  THE  WORKING  PEOPLE. 

Here  is  set  forth  briefly  the  story  of  one  of  the  most  dramatic 
phases  of  the  history  of  the  struggle  to  free  the  workers  of 
America.  It  is  the  condensed  story  of  the  New  York  Call,  the 
only  Socialist  daily  newspaper  in  the  east  and  the  oldest  one  in 
the  country. 

The  Call  was  first  issued  on  May  30,  1908. 

It  is  co-operatively  owned  by  an  association  of  working  men 
and  women.  Membership  in  this  association  cost  $5  and  may  be 
had  by  vote  of  the  association  following  application  through  any 
member. 

A  board  of  managers,  representing  the  association  and  the  So- 
cialist party  organizations  of  New  York  are  the  persons  in  direct 
supervision  of  the  publication  of  the  paper. 

The  Call  is  not  self-supporting  and  never  has  been.  It  is  more 
nearly  self-supporting  now  than  at  any  previous  time.  The  deficit 
for  1916  will  be  about  $300  per  week.  To  meet  this  deficit  a  pledge 
fund  is  raised.  This  has  been  the  course  pursued  since  the  paper 
was  started.  The  fact  that  each  year  sees  a  smaller  pledge  fund 
needed  is  the  one  sure  indication  of  the  growing  strength  of  the 
paper  and  of  the  increasing  support  that  the  workers  are  giving  it. 

At  present  The  Call  stands  as  the  recognized  organ  of  ALL 
of  the  organized  workers  of  the  Greater  New  York  district. 

The  Call  always  has  spoken  for  the  Socialist  party.  During 
1915  it  was  given  the  endorsement  of  the  Central  Federated  Union 
of  New  York,  the  Brooklyn  Central  Labor  Union  and  the  Essex 
Trades  Council,  representing  the  organized  workers  of  northern 
New  Jersey. 


Must  We  Akm     -  45 


There  is  no  newspaper  in  New  York  City,  or  elsewhere  in  this 
country  that  speaks  in  the  name  of  so  many  ORGANIZED  people. 
This  is  a  distinction  that  is  unique  and  of  which  The  Call  is  proud. 

The  Call  is  published  every  day.  On  Sundays  it  publishes  two 
sections,  an  eight-page  news  section  and  a  i6-page  magazine  sec- 
tion. The  week-day  editions  are  usually  of  six  pages.  It  is  our 
hope  that  before  long  the  size  of  the  regular  week-day  edition  may 
be  increased  to  permit  of  the  publication  of  a  greater  variety  of 
news  and  special  feature  articles. 

The  working  force  of  The  Call  is  divided  as  follows: 

A  business  office  staff,  headed  by  the  business  manager.  This 
staff  cares  for  circulation,  advertising,  pledges  and  routing  business 
of  all  kinds.  This  staff,  like  the  staff  in  the  editorial  department, 
never  has  been  large  enough  to  permit  of  doing  the  work  that  it 
would  like  to  do,  but  it  has  accomplished  very  wonderful  things 
when  its  limitations  are  considered. 

An  editorial  department,  headed  by  the  managing  editor.  In 
this  department  there  are  these  sub-divisions:  Editorial  writers, 
Sunday  editor  and  news  staff  under  the  direction  of  the  city  editor. 
It  is  the  work  of  these  people  to  handle  all  of  the  news  that  is 
published,  to  direct  the  getting  of  it  and  to  do  all  of  the  things  that 
go  into  the  work  of  actually  producing  the  paper. 

The  policy  of  The  Call  is  that  of  the  Socialist  party.  It  is 
committed  to  the  doctrine  of  Socialism,, absolutely.  Barring  those 
errors  that  can  never  be  wholly  avoided,  The  Call  constantly  ex- 
presses the  true  aims  of  the  Socialist  party  on  the  political  field 
and  of  the  trade  union  movement  on  the  industrial  field. 

Through  The  Call  the  workers  are  also  able  to  get  the  vital 
news  that  the  capitalist  press  either  will  not  print  or  does  not  deem 
fit  to  print.     In  other  words  The  Call  always  presents  labor's  side 


46  !vIuSi  We  Arm? 


of  the  case.  Without  The  Call  there  would  not  be  any  adequate 
presentation  of  labor's  case  in  the  great  district  east  of  Chicago. 
Without  the  Call  almost  any  lie  of  capitalism  would  pass  unchal- 
lenged, so  far  as  the  readers  of  English  newspapers  are  concerned. 

The  Call  is  the  key  to  labor's  fight,  the  organ  of  its  propaganda 
and  agitation.     It  is  one  of  labor's  most  vital  possessions. 

It  sells  for  5  cents  on  Sunday  and  2  cents  on  week  days.     Its 
true  value  has  never  been  computed  and  never  can  be. 

SUBSCRIPTION    RATES 

1  Month.  3  Months.  6  Months.     1  Year.  2  Yeara 

Week   Day    Only    $0.50            $1.45            $2.00            $3.00  $5.00 

Sunday  Only 20                .60              1.00              2.00  3.50 

Dally    and     Sunday     70             2.00             3.00             5.00  8.00 

Clubs  of  three  or  more.   Dally   and   Sunday.  $3.50  per   year. 

Postal  regulations  require  that  in  addition  to  the  above  rates  mail 
subscribers  in  Manhattan  and  Bronx  pay  one  cent  a  day  to  cover  postage. 
Foreign    postage   extra. 

Write  for   Magazine   Clubbing    rates  and   premium  offers. 
Rates  to  dealers  and  agents  on  application. 

The  New  York  Call 

444  PEARL  STREET  NEW  YORK  CITY 


MR.     ALFRED     A.     KNOPF'S     NEW     BOOKS 

GREEN  MANSIONS,  By  W.  H.  Hudson.  With  a  striking 
introduction  by  John  Galsworthy.  A  charming  romance 
of  the  tropical  forest  by  one  of  the  very  greatest  living 
writers.  $1.50 

GREAT  RUSSIA,  By  Charles  Sarolea,  author  of  "The  Anglo- 
German  Problem,"  etc.  A  brilliant  and  sympathetic  survey 
of  the  country  and  its  people.     With  maps.  $1.25 

THE  MEMOIRS  OF  A  PHYSICIAN,  From  the  Russian  of 
Vikenty  Veressayev.  A  work  (non-fiction)  known  the 
world  over,  which  has  placed  its  author  in  the  first  rank 
of  Russian  writers.  $1.50 

THE  LITTLE  DEMON,  A  novel  from  the  Russian  of 
Feodor  Sologub.  The  authorized  English  version,  with 
a  special  preface,  of  this  writer's  finest  and  most  famous 
book.  $1.50 

THE  OLD  HOUSE,     From  the  Russian  of  Feodor  Sologub. 

A  novelette  and  ten  other  striking  stories.  $1-35 

A  HERO  OF  OUR  TIAIE,  A  novel  from  the  Russian  of 
M.  Y.  Lermontov.  A  great  romantic  story  that  is  an 
accepted  classic.  $1.40 

SELF-GOVERNMENT  IN  RUSSIA,     By  Paul  Vinogradoff. 

A  contribution  by  one  of  the  greatest  modern  authorities.  $1.00 

OTHERS:  AN:  ANTHOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  VERSE, 
Edited  by  Alfred  Kreymborg.  The  work  of  almost  fifty 
poets.  $1.50 

FOUR  DIMENSIONAL  VISTAS,  By  Claude  Bragdon.  For 
all  who  are  interested  in  the  Fourth  Dimension  and  in 
Theosophy.  $1.25 

IN  THE  RUSSIAN  RANKS,  By  John  Morse  (Englishman). 
Ten  months'  fighting  in  Poland.  "The  most  notable  piece 
of  war  literature  the  war  has  yet  produced." — The  London 
Times.  $1.50 

THE  BUFFOON,     By  Louis  U.  Wilkinson.     A  striking  novel 

of  contemporary  life.  $150 

220  West  FORTY-SECOND  STREET,  NEW  YORK 


The  Rand  Book  Store 


The  Rand  Book  Store  is  another  department  of  the  Rand 
School  which  should  receive  the  patronage  and  consideration  <^ 
every  comrade  and  radical  in  America. 

For  many  years  it  was  hard  to  get  books  on  radical  subjectst 
but  we  have  outlived  this  stage  and  it  is  no  more  the  question  of 
getting  books  on  economics  or  other  subjects  related  to  Socialism, 
but  to  be  informed  as  to  how  many  books  come  out,  and  which  of 
them  you  ought  to  have  in  order  to  be  up-to-date. 

The  Rand  Book  Store  has  the  most  complete  stock  of  radical 
and  Socialist  books  that  can  be  had  in  the  city,  and  a  visit  to  our 
book  store  will  convince  you  that  we  are  right. 

We  are  now  issuing  a  new  catalogue,  which  will  have  a  conv 
plete  list  of  those  books  (published  up-to-date)  that  are  of  any 
Interest  to  radicals.    This  will  be  mailed  upon  request. 

We  have  started  deposit  accounts  with  several  comrades,  and 
if  you  would  like  to  deposit  a  certain  sum  with  the  school  upon 
which  you  can  draw  to  get  books,  we  shall  be  glad  to  accommodate 
you. 

Most  of  our  comrades  are  book  buyers.  We  urge  upon  their 
attention  the  fact  that  we  make  a  specialty  of  radical  books.  Not 
only  can  you  get  what  you  want  through  us,  but  you  have  the 
satisfaction  of  knowing  that  the  profits  on  your  purchases  go  to 
the  School  and  thereby  help  the  furtherance  of  Socialist  Education. 


STAMPED  BELOW 


Sti 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


f  _.Y     ■ 

Yol 

md  t 

ly  oi 

cou 

Sen 

emat 

cou 

For 

ill  t< 
s,  tal 

ftb      WAR  29  1941  w 

Wif               .1     -rf'irtf-rt     \    W 

^'"        ::{i  01953  Lii' 

jssor 

;sson 



snc 

Cil 

R; 

140 

LD21-100w-7.'39(402s) 

YB  47(86' 


340T?D0 


''-V^- 

^-^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


